/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14405019]

opinions about him?

[Anonymous No.14405139]

Perfect if one reconsiders that he doesn't truly believe in absolute evil and only uses the word figuratively, and that matter is only "evil" as much as it is the least good thing on the virtuous echelons. Matter is thus good as the receptacle of form, including divine form in Intelligible Matter.
Matter is too from the One and is in a way good, merely being the pure Indefinite without the mixture of the Definite. Just as the knowable One is the pure definite

[Anonymous No.14405171]

>>14405019
Refuted by Guénon.

[Anonymous No.14405195]

>>14405139
Of course, evil as an actually existent substance is just metaphysically ridiculous. Evil is just distance from God, or absence of God

[Anonymous No.14405205]

>>14405139
>perfect
>was unable to achieve permanent union with the One but only temporary samadhi a couple of times

[Anonymous No.14405318]

>>14405205
>“It is the duty of us, the founders, then,” said I, “to compel the best natures to attain the knowledge which we pronounced the greatest, and to win to the vision of the good, to scale that ascent, and when they have reached the heights and taken an adequate view, we must not allow what is now permitted.”
“What is that?”
>“That they should linger there,” I said, “and refuse to go down again among those bondsmen and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less or of greater worth.”
“Do you mean to say that we must do them this wrong, and compel them to live an inferior life when the better is in their power?”
>“You have again forgotten, my friend,” said I, “that the law is not concerned with the special happiness of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them for the binding together of the commonwealth.”
“True,” he said, “I did forget it.”
>“Observe, then, Glaucon,” said I, “that we shall not be wronging, either, the philosophers who arise among us, but that we can justify our action when we constrain them to take charge of the other citizens and be their guardians.

and you dare slander him

[Anonymous No.14405332]

>>14405019
He got no nose

[Anonymous No.14405427]

>>14405318
>Plato
>Plotinus
Two different people, Plotinus was ashamed of his body, he didn't agree with getting a bust of his visage since the bodily form is the imperfect image of the One, while Plato was swole and goes off in many tangents and much of his good works are merely Pythagorean doctrines that predates him.

[Anonymous No.14405456]

>>14405332
How does he smell?

[Anonymous No.14405528]

>>14405427
>>14405427
>>Plato
>>Plotinus
>Two different people,
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.14405690]

>>14405528
So in other words, you're coping with the failure of Plotinus to attain a permanent union with the One while still living by inserting into Plotinus' mouth the words of Plato and claiming 'oh now it's not a problem that he didn't reach permanent unity' despite that everything we know about Plotinus indicates that he had way stronger ascetic and anti-worldly inclinations than Plato. I love Plotinus and he is one of my favorite thinkers but that's just cringe mental gymnastic my man. As much as I love him I'm willing to admit that he wasn't perfect.

[Anonymous No.14405695]

>>14405456
Awful, by the looks of his crusty ass.

[Anonymous No.14405710]

>>14405690
who else got perfect union with the one, besides, perhaps, the buddha?

[Anonymous No.14405863]

>>14405690
>you're coping with the failure of Plotinus to attain a permanent union with the One while still living by inserting into Plotinus' mouth the words of Plato
touché

[Anonymous No.14405895]

>>14405710
Parmenides, Shankara, Abhinavagupta, Dyaneshwar, Sanai, Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Zhuangzi, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj. Countless Buddhists including major Buddhist abbots and teachers etc would strenuously deny that Buddha taught union with the One so I don't know how good of an example that is.

[Anonymous No.14405964]

>>14405690
I don't think you really grasp what Plotinus was on about but I also don't think that anon knows what Plotinus was on about too. You're both ignorant in that regard.

[Anonymous No.14406101]

>>14405895
can you (citing any source) prove that they achieved it? also what do buddhists think then, what does one attains with nibbana

[Anonymous No.14406102]

>>14405964
Then does nothing of it [the Ineffable] come to be present in the things here? For this is the next question to be investigated.37 And how would it not have come to be present, since all things are from it in some way? That from which each thing proceeds is also that in which [each thing] participates, and if it has nothing else from there, it has that which it is, and draws breath from its own principle and returns to that insofar as it is able. What, then, will prevent that from giving something of itself to those things that are from it? What other intermediary kind of existence [will be necessary]?
Of course, it is necessary always for the second to be closer than the third with respect to the fi rst principle, and again for the third to be closer than the fourth; and if this is so, then, too, it is necessary for [the second] to emerge less from it. And if this is so, then it is necessary that it should remain that much the more within the boundary of that nature. And if this is so, then still more must it be like it, so as to be suitable for participation in it, and so also to participate in it.
How then could we entertain these suggestions about it at all, unless there was some trace of it in us, a trace that as it were urges [us] toward it? Must it not also be said, since it is the Ineffable, to distribute an ineffable participation to all things, according to which there is something ineffable in each thing, something that leads us to recognize that by nature some things are more ineffable than others: the One is more ineffable than Being, and Being more than life, and life more than intellect, and there is a continual succession according to the same proportion, or rather the inverse, from matter up to rational being, the latter from the inferior perspective and the former from the superior, if one can put it thus?
Now if someone assumes this, he will generate a procession from the Ineffable and a kind of order of ineffability that governs all the stages of the procession, and we shall actually refer all things capable of expression in language back to the Ineffable as well, since everywhere it is apportioned into that which can be expressed in language.

[Anonymous No.14406111]

>>14405964
>>14406102
And thus we shall postulate three monads and three numbers, not simply two as before, namely, the substantial, the unitary, and the Ineffable. And so we shall posit this thesis, which we previously rejected, namely, that there are one and many in the Ineffable, as well as a series consisting in first, middle, and final terms, and, additionally, [the triad] of remaining, procession, and return; and in general, we shall incorporate a great deal of that which can be spoken of into the Ineffable.39 But if, as we maintained, one must not apply [the expressions] “that” or “those” to the Ineffable, because we wish it to be beyond the one and the many, therefore neither must we posit one [Ineffable] that exists prior to the many [ineffables] and another that, by virtue of its participation in the many is divided in the same way as they. It will not then be something that can be participated in, nor does it give something of itself to that which comes after it, nor is each god ineffable before it is one, in the way that [each] is one before having an essential nature. (I 26)
But even here the argument, by its self-reversal, demonstrates that that entity is, after all, ineffable, since it conceives the Ineffable in ways that are fundamentally opposed and in terms of the natures that are inferior to it. But how could this come as a surprise, given the kinds of difficulties we shall come up against concerning the One, not to mention those concerning the Unified and concerning Being? But these must await us.

[Anonymous No.14406227]

He's a discount Hindu

[Anonymous No.14406330]

>>14406111
>>14405690
Life's not all about perfect union. It's like tripping balls. Do it too often and you might go crazy but a little will open you up to the mysteries of true philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14406600]

>>14406101
They attain an attitude of an religious atheist.

[Anonymous No.14407738]

>>14405019
bump

[Anonymous No.14408003]

>>14405019
uggo

[Anonymous No.14408009]

>>14405019
big dick energy

[Anonymous No.14408154]

>>14405139
>>14405195

Yet another aspect in which Catholics are perfectly anti-Christian is their denial of evil, or Evil, as a Monad in and of itself. Resurrection itself explains that observing Death and dying proper is the only means whereby one cannot die, and that making light of Death and thinking yourself exempt is the only means whereby one dies. Their generally morbid and anti-Christian obsession with Mary is particularly morbid and anti-Christian in this regard, they give themselves over to the End by turning their backs to it. Behold YOUR mother, indeed.

[Anonymous No.14408221]

>>14408154
The fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.14408748]

>>14405139
isn't this proclus' take?

[Anonymous No.14408759]

>>14405690
>>14405690
>you're coping with the failure of Plotinus to attain a permanent union with the One

this isn't a failure...navel-gazing for the rest of your """"life"""" because you think you're certain you've achieved permanent union with the One is

plotinus spent his life doing good deeds and taking care of orphans...what did shankara and buddha do apart from running away from their responsibilities and living off of the labour of others?

[Anonymous No.14408815]

>>14405019
A philosophical genius for sure, too bad he got everything wrong (the Forms aren't real)

[Anonymous No.14408900]

>>14408748
It's quite "evident" if you read Plotinus - On Matter.

[Anonymous No.14408937]

>>14408759
>>14405690
Fucking hell, Neoplatonists and Guenonfags are supposed to be on the same side.

[Anonymous No.14408959]

>>14405019
Profound, but ultimately false thought in that it falls into pagan impersonalism. The One Logos is not the sum of the many logoi; yet, all logoi are contained in him in that they are eternally known. The Logos is personal.
St. Maximus deployed Plotinus’ thought to articulate an orthodox ontology, which he succeeded to do. Read the ambigua.

[Anonymous No.14408999]

>>14408937
Why? Guenon dismissed Plotinus in his letters and never read him.

[Anonymous No.14409002]

>>14408900
I'm asking because Proclus is supposed to have critiqued Plotinus on the question of evil and matter, which, according to Proclus, would lead Plotinus into espousing a dualism.

[Anonymous No.14409013]

>>14408748
also this section of Against the Gnostics is poignant

[Anonymous No.14409019]

>>14408959
Plotinus doctrine of mystical love with the One/Good is quite similar to the Love uniting us and a Personal God. Both of them incite us to Him.

[Anonymous No.14409040]

>>14408999
That doesn't mean Guenon and Plotinus are incompatible. I think if Guenon did read Plotinus he would actually agree with him.
Guenon just fell for the exotic eastern esoterism meme because he was seething so hard at the west, he assumed there would be no good western esoteric thought in Plotinus.

Though his main reason for dismissing him, was because there arent any active Neoplatonist Schools that actually still hold on to the Traditions and teachings of Plotinus.
The closest thing to that would be Theosophy and Thelema, both of which are pretty average.

[Anonymous No.14409043]

>>14409019
>Personal God
Ah so the Aboriginals have equal footing with the Neoplatonists? Good.

[Anonymous No.14409053]

>>14409043
Aboriginal Dreamtime is just another form of Pagan Esoterism, in the form of primitive Animism.

You Christards need to get over the fact that Christcuckery dosen't have a monopoly over spirituality in the west anymore

[Anonymous No.14409055]

>>14409040
Theosophy and Thelema are watered down Abrahamic Neo-Neoplatonism.

[Anonymous No.14409061]

>>14409055
Correct, thats why Guenon rightly criticised them. But if he actually took the time to read Plotinus himself, he would have agreed with him.

[Anonymous No.14409070]

>>14409053
>Animism is metaphysical, I swear!
Animism are all batshit crazy Pantheistic Creationism not far off from Scientology.

[Anonymous No.14409074]

>>14409061
Guenon is just more Theosophy.

[Anonymous No.14409077]

>>14409070
Kill yourself

>>14409074
How so?

[Anonymous No.14409114]

>>14409077
Same syncretic philosophia perennis whose metaphysical/theological core is really just yet another neo-platonism redux. He is more austere in his requirements for what constitutes a tradition, but he is still basically perennialist. Likewise he's much more austere in his appreciation of hermeticism and occultism, but he's still fundamentally syncretically open to hermeticism and occultism in the prisca theologia sense.

He's fine, but he's not fundamentally escaping the trap Theosophy fell into. Theosophy wants an ersatz tradition to reconstitute tradition as such, Guenon wants a return to existing traditions to resuscitate them. At the end of the day, both see tradition and the metaphysical insight contained in it as the solution to modernity. Which is fine, but both are reliant on the same neo-platonic framework.

This isn't to say that the framework is bad, but it skews analysis of genuine metaphysical traditions. One of the most fascinating questions we can ask is "to what extent did all culture groups descended from Proto-Indo-European share a similar metaphysics or weltanschauung?" But this question is muddled, not clarified, when we naively presuppose that this (possibly real) primordial tradition simply and straightforwardly corresponds to Renaissance and later tidied-up versions of the "Platonic tradition," with a secret parallel "Hermetic tradition," which is then unconsciously projected onto every other culture as a model. Guenon might be less lame and more believable than a Theosophist when he does this, but he's still fundamentally doing it, and he might even be more dangerous precisely because he's better at it. At least the Theosophists suck enough that most people fairly quickly go "lol wait a minute this is bullshit."

Another thing I don't like is how much influence they had in India itself. It would be one thing if Euro hinduboos like Blavatsky and Besant stayed in their own fucking countries and wrote their shit, but western theosophists went over and projected their ideas onto a century of Indians, Indians who were educated in the British system and probably were more "culturally European" than Indian in most cases, who then went back to India to govern it. The whole post-47 generation of Indian nation-builders were Marxists, Theosophists, occult Spiritists etc., all in western style. Of course they were still Indian in their hearts, but their rational and cultural minds were completely built up on western models and even in western languages. I don't think that's healthy for a country. India is just one example of where this happened. We associate this process mostly with "democratizers" like in South Korea, but the same process has gone on with "traditionalizers." In both cases, they are usually westernized and foreign-educated elites.

Even today, the most vociferous Iranian or Arab or Hindu traditionalist-nationalists I know are expats, often sons of rich emigrants, western educated and western-thinking.

[Anonymous No.14409117]

>>14409061
I don't agree with the notion that Plotinus didn't attain henosis/enlightenment/transcendence. I don't agree with the notion that telling others the way out of the cave is by any means necessary to fulfill henosis as that stupid idiot wholly misinterprets the golden chain as a literal continuation of perpetual reincarnation of the same persona behind Plato is by any means the same as Plotinus and so on. I don't agree with the notion that labour nor the lack of physical labour substituted with donations provided by others by their own liberty has anything to do with going back into the cave to release the prisoners.

[Anonymous No.14409127]

>>14409077
>Kill Yourself
>thinks Abbo metaphysics is on equal footing with the ancient Greeks and Indians
Do tell why there are no Negroid philosophers before the advent of industrial era and what the Greeks and Indians don't have that the Abbos do.

[Anonymous No.14409180]

>>14409127
I didnt say they were on equal footing lol. Just that abbo metaphysics is better than NO Metaphysics at all, which is quickly becoming the case in the modern west


>>14409114
I agree I think, your main argument is that Guenon took Hermeticism/Platonism and projected it onto every other culture in the east, but it was more accurate and subtle than the way the Theosophists did it.

Guenon was biased in that sense, like how everyone is biased in some way. But he wasnt necessarily wrong about the legitimate similarities between the schools of esoteric thought, in both the east and the west. There are enough similarities between Platonism/Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. for it not to be a coincidence.

Thats why Platonism and Neoplatonism were such huge influences on both Christian and Islamic Philosophy, because Christians and Muslims saw how similar their worldviews were to the Platonists and believed that the philosophy could be used in their religions. Some sects of Shia Muslims even went so far as to venerate Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus etc. as Prophets/Saints in their religion, and believed they were other messengers that God had sent to the Greeks before Jesus.

There is definitely a bias of westerners superimposing their esoteric schools of thought onto the eastern ones, but its impossible to remove all bias entirely, just as long as Guenon fags are aware of it and dont exaggerate him too badly, like has been happening on this board.
But even the people who have been following these Eastern Religions have noticed that Platonic/Neoplatonic philosophy fits into their religion suspiciously well, too well for it to be a coincidence.

[Anonymous No.14409243]

>>14409180
There is no personal God as in persona, any personality descriptions aren't physical. Gender for example, is used to describe even and odd and by tradition even is female and odd is male, yet the One is he simplest 'evenly odd' but described as male anyways. Switching male for female and vice versa in description doesn't mean that it is actually that gender. Likewise, any descriptions of anthropomorphic personality isn't the anthropomorphization of the divine into and as the profane. A literal convention sense of a personal God or demigod avatar of a personal God as if God takes material form and so is an eternally mortal super-object cannot be the Absolute when that devotion is seen as separate from the beholder of the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.14409303]

>>14408154
shut up gnostic

[Anonymous No.14409308]

Athenian
And now, as I think, we have argued quite sufficiently with him who loves to censure the gods for neglect.

Clinias
Yes.

Athenian
And it was by forcing him by our arguments to acknowledge [903b] that what he says is wrong. But still he needs also, as it seems to me, some words of counsel to act as a charm upon him.

Clinias
What kind of words, my good sir?

Athenian
Let us persuade the young man by our discourse that all things are ordered systematically by Him who cares for the World—all with a view to the preservation and excellence of the Whole, whereof also each part, so far as it can, does and suffers what is proper to it. To each of these parts, down to the smallest fraction, rulers of their action and passion are appointed to bring about fulfillment even to the uttermost [903c] fraction; whereof thy portion also, O perverse man, is one, and tends therefore always in its striving towards the All, tiny though it be. But thou failest to perceive that all partial generation is for the sake of the Whole, in order that for the life of the World-all blissful existence may be secured,—it not being generated for thy sake, but thou for its sake. For every physician and every trained craftsman works always for the sake of a Whole, and strives after what is best in general, and he produces a part for the sake of a whole, and not a whole for the sake of a part; [903d] but thou art vexed, because thou knowest not how what is best in thy case for the All turns out best for thyself also, in accordance with the power of your common origin. And inasmuch as soul, being conjoined now with one body, now with another, is always undergoing all kinds of changes either of itself or owing to another soul, there is left for the draughts-player no further task,—save only to shift the character that grows better to a superior place, and the worse to a worse, according to what best suits each of them, so that to each may be allotted its appropriate destiny. [903e]

Clinias
In what way do you mean?

Athenian
The way I am describing is, I believe, that in which supervision of all things is most easy for the gods. For if one were to shape all things, without a constant view to the Whole, by transforming them (as, for instance, fire into water), instead of merely converting one into many or many into one, then when things had shared in a first, or second, or even third generation, they would be countless in number in such a system of transformations; but as things are, the task before the Supervisor of the All is wondrous easy.

[Anonymous No.14409322]

>>14409308
Clinias
How do you mean?

Athenian
Thus:—Since our King saw that all actions involve soul, and contain much good and much evil, and that body and soul are, when generated, indestructible but not eternal,2 as are the gods ordained by law (for if either soul or body had been destroyed, [904b] there would never have been generation of living creatures), and since He perceived that all soul that is good naturally tends always to benefit, but the bad to injure,—observing all this, He designed a location for each of the parts, wherein it might secure the victory of goodness in the Whole and the defeat of evil most completely, easily, and well. For this purpose He has designed the rule which prescribes what kind of character should be set to dwell in what kind of position and in what regions;3 but the causes of the generation of any special kind he left to the wills [904c] of each one of us men.4 For according to the trend of our desires and the nature of our souls, each one of us generally becomes of a corresponding character.

Clinias
That is certainly probable.

Athenian
All things that share in soul change, since they possess within themselves the cause of change, and in changing they move according to the law and order of destiny; the smaller the change of character, the less is the movement over surface in space, but when the change is great and towards great iniquity, [904d] then they move towards the deep and the so-called lower regions, regarding which—under the names of Hades and the like—men are haunted by most fearful imaginings, both when alive and when disparted from their bodies. And whenever the soul gets a specially large share of either virtue or vice, owing to the force of its own will and the influence of its intercourse growing strong, then, if it is in union with divine virtue, it becomes thereby eminently virtuous, and moves to an eminent region, being transported by a holy road to another and a better region; [904e] whereas, if the opposite is the case, it changes to the opposite the location of its life's abode.““This is the just decree of the gods who inhabit Olympus,”

”thou child and stripling who thinkest thou art neglected by the gods,—the decree that as thou becomest worse, thou goest to the company of the worse souls, and as thou becomest better, to the better souls; and that, alike in life and in every shape of death, thou both doest and sufferest what it is befitting that like should do towards like.

[Anonymous No.14409336]

>>14405195
distance within what space you fuck wit

[Anonymous No.14409338]

>>14409322
From this decree of Heaven neither wilt thou nor any other luckless wight ever boast that he has escaped; for this decree is one which the gods who have enjoined it have enjoined above all others, and meet it is that it should be most strictly observed. For by it thou wilt not ever be neglected, neither if thou shouldest dive, in thy very littleness, into the depths of the earth below, nor if thou shouldest soar up to the height of Heaven above; but thou shalt pay to the gods thy due penalty, whether thou remainest here on earth, or hast passed away to Hades, [905b] or art transported to a region yet more fearsome. And the same rule, let me tell thee, will apply also to those whom thou sawest growing to great estate from small after doing acts of impiety or other such evil,—concerning whom thou didst deem that they had risen from misery to happiness, and didst imagine, therefore, that in their actions, as in mirrors, thou didst behold the entire neglect of the gods, not knowing of their joint contribution and [905c] how it contributes to the All. And surely, O most courageous of men, thou canst not but suppose that this is a thing thou must needs learn. For if a man learns not this, he can never see even an outline of the truth, nor will he be able to contribute an account of life as regards its happiness or its unhappy fortune.

[Anonymous No.14409362]

>>14409338
. . . If Clinias here and all our gathering of elders succeed in convincing thee of this fact, that thou knowest not what thou sayest about the gods, then God Himself of His grace will aid thee; but shouldest thou still be in need of further argument, give ear to us while we argue with the third unbeliever, [905d] if thou hast sense at all. For we have proved, as I would maintain, by fairly sufficient argument that the gods exist and care for men; the next contention, that the gods can be won over by wrongdoers,1 on the receipt of bribes, is one that no one should admit, and we must try to refute it by every means in our power.

Clinias
Admirably spoken: let us do as you say.

Athenian
Come now, in the name of these gods themselves I ask—in what way would they come to be seduced by us, if seduced they were? [905e] Being what in their essence and character? Necessarily they must be rulers, if they are to be in continual control of the whole heaven.

Clinias
True.

Athenian
But to which kind of rulers are they like? Or which are like to them, of those rulers whom we can fairly compare with them, as small with great? Would drivers of rival teams resemble them, or pilots of ships? Or perhaps they might be likened to rulers of armies; or possibly they might be compared to physicians watching over a war against bodily disease, or to farmers fearfully awaiting seasons of wonted difficulty for the generation of plants, or else to masters of flocks. For seeing that we have agreed1 among ourselves that the heaven is full of many things that are good, and of the opposite kind also, and that those not good are the more numerous, such a battle, we affirm, is undying, and needs a wondrous watchfulness,—the gods and daemons being our allies, and we the possession of the gods and daemons; and what destroys us is iniquity and insolence combined with folly, [906b] what saves us, justice and temperance combined with wisdom, which dwell in the animate powers of the gods, and of which some small trace may be clearly seen here also residing in us. But there are certain souls that dwell on earth and have acquired unjust gain which, being plainly bestial, beseech the souls of the guardians—whether they be watch-dogs or herdsmen or the most exalted of masters—trying to convince them by fawning words [906c] and prayerful incantations that (as the tales of evil men relate) they can profiteer among men on earth without any severe penalty: but we assert that the sin now mentioned, of profiteering or “over-gaining,” is what is called in the case of fleshly bodies “disease,”3 in that of seasons and years “pestilence,” and in that of States and polities, by a verbal change, this same sin is called “injustice”.

[Anonymous No.14409376]

>>14409362

Clinias
Certainly.

Athenian
Such must necessarily be the account of the matter given by the man who says that the gods are always merciful to unjust men [906d] and those who act unjustly, provided that one gives them a share of one's unjust gains; it is just as if wolves were to give small bits of their prey to watch-dogs, and they being mollified by the gifts were to allow them to go ravening among the flocks. Is not this the account given by the man who asserts that the gods are open to bribes?

Clinias
It is.

Athenian
To which of the guardians aforementioned might a man liken the gods without incurring ridicule? Is it to pilots, [906e] who, when warped themselves by wine's “flow and flavor,”4 overturn both ships and sailors?

Clinias
By no means.

Athenian
And surely not to drivers ranged up for a race and seduced by a gift to lose it in favor of other teams?

Clinias
If that was the account you gave of them, it would indeed be a horrible comparison.

Athenian
Nor, surely, to generals or physicians or farmers or herdsmen; nor yet to dogs charmed by wolves?

Clinias
Hush! That is quite impossible.
Athenian
Are not all gods the greatest of all guardians, and over the greatest things?

Clinias
Yes, by far.

Athenian
Shall we say that those who watch over the fairest things, and who are themselves eminently good at keeping watch, are inferior to dogs and ordinary men, who would never betray justice for the sake of gifts impiously offered by unjust men? [907b]

Clinias
By no means; it is an intolerable thing to say, and whoever embraces such an opinion would most justly be adjudged the worst and most impious of all the impious men who practice impiety in all its forms.

Athenian
May we now say that we have fully proved our three propositions,—namely, that the gods exist, and that they are careful, and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice?

Clinias
Certainly we may; and in these statements you have our support.

Athenian
And truly they have been made in somewhat vehement terms, in our desire for victory [907c] over those wicked men; and our desire for victory was due to our fear lest haply, if they gained the mastery in argument, they should suppose they had gained the right to act as they chose—those men who wickedly hold all those false notions about the gods. On this account we have been zealous to speak with special honor; and if we have produced any good effect, however small, in the way of persuading the men to hate themselves and to feel some love for an opposite kind of character, then our prelude to the laws respecting impiety [907d] will not have been spoken amiss.

[Anonymous No.14409508]

>>14409043
What does aboriginals even have to do with a loving personal god? I cant see your point

[Anonymous No.14409683]

>>14409508
>There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Anonymous No.14409686]

>>14409040
>Though his main reason for dismissing him, was because there arent any active Neoplatonist Schools that actually still hold on to the Traditions and teachings of Plotinus.

No, the main reason for dismissing him is that Plotinus didn't claim to have reached a permanent union with the One, t herefore he fucked up his initiation. But otherwise Guenon notes a strong similarity between Plotinus and Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.14409740]

>>14409686
Because that's only possible after death.
A composer does it through nothing but music he becomes the beautiful.
A hero by merely being virtuous he becomes the Good.
The mathematician through dialectics knows Being.
A philosopher does it through all these ways, transcending knowledge he knows himself as the One and that he's always been.

[Anonymous No.14409759]

>>14409683
jesus christ how does it relate to anything i said earlier

[Anonymous No.14409775]

>>14409740
> Because that's only possible after death.

So what are Shankara and his followers doing when they imply they've attained permanent unity with the One? Are they frauds?

[Anonymous No.14409923]

>>14409775
No, it's indeed possible and Shankara and others have reached it before. It's just that Neoplatonistanon has some sort of personal attachement to Plotinus to the point of feeling like when people say that Plotinus was't perfect or that he was wrong about something that they are attacking Neoplatonistanon personally and so he just argues from the position of "every line of reasoning that says Plotinus was wrong about something or wasn't perfect must defacto be wrong". Don't actually expect to get any good reasoning though as to why it's impossible to attain a permanent unity with the One while still living. Only ad-hominem attacks, empty rhetoric and a strawmanning of the people be argues against, combined with passages from Plotinus/Plato criticizing something which often doesn't even correspond to the thing he is implying the passage is refuting. I known Neoplatonistanon well from lurking many threads and consider him to be a younger brother of sorts, by reading Plotinus and Plato he has done well for himself but he still has a long way to go before reaching true wisdom and transcendence.

[Anonymous No.14409976]

>>14409923
>No, it's indeed possible and Shankara and others have reached it before

proofs?

[Anonymous No.14410031]

>>14409759
Abbos are dumb therefore God not real lol
t. Poltard

[Anonymous No.14410060]

>>14409775
Deluding themselves.
>>14409923
Because Plato says it is immoral, and he is the highest authority of all scripture ever written. God does not allow permanent union.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt one can argue they were in union with Soul thinking that this was the highest. Since each sphere of Being has its One and union; merely ascending up to the encosmic Apollo will feel like the highest realm if the order of your Soul is of that rank, and in deed he is in a way the One yet not.
This is why we cannot believe anyone's claim of permanent union (in bodily life) with the Ineffable One, it is ontologically impossible.

We aren't soul communists, this is the whole metaphysics of evil and good in Plotinus. Being is the whole hierarchy harmony and order, and we are each the Good by being in our right order and by being this virtuous duty we turned back to the One and together with the chorus of all Being ascend ever upwards. Eventually we will be the Guardians who willingly "descend" to lead others in the ascension of Olympos.

[Anonymous No.14410149]

>>14409923
>"every line of reasoning that says Plato was wrong about something or wasn't perfect must defacto be wrong"
Plato and Plotinus are of course also in perfect noncontradiction.

[Anonymous No.14410239]

>>14409508
see >>14409243

[Anonymous No.14410555]

>>14409376
There is no way to 'prove it', although his writings are from the perspective of someone who has already attained It, and over thousands of pages he explains exactly how this is done and it's all internally consistent and logically coherent, his writings display all the characteristics that we would expect to find in the works of someone who had.
>>14410060
>Because Plato says it is immoral, and he is the highest authority of all scripture ever written.
There are many traditions who reject this claim some of which are older than Plato. This is not a compelling argument. Also do you have a quote where he says this verbatim or are you reading this into his statement saying people shouldn't abandon society? I'm highly skeptical that he said this word for word and would guess that you are wrongfully inferring this on from his statements against secluding oneself. In any case moralistic arguments are completely subjective.
>God does not allow permanent union.
Why though? You are just stated this as dogma but have not given any reasons why we should accept this as true, why it's logical etc. All you did was write some sentences about why according to your reading of Neoplatonism they would be deluding themselves but you havn't given any explanation of *why* it's impossible.
>it is ontologically impossible.
Again, you still haven't given a single reason why we should consider this to be correct or logical

[Anonymous No.14410588]

>>14410555
He thinks he already had by posting those screenshots and text affirms his interpretations but go ahead and prove to /lit/ that he is in a mind loop, though I doubt he has the intuition to recognize it.

[Anonymous No.14410591]

>>14409243
>>14410239
>Personality (in the metaphysical sense) has nothing to do with the ''human person'', commonly confused amongst moderns, which is the individuality, and it is this alone that can be called human. Also, when attempted to carry their views further, mistake for the personality what is actually the superior part of individuality, or an extension of it.
>The Self is a transcendent and permanent principle of which the manifested being, the human being, is only a transient and contingent modification (one that does not affect the principle). Immutable in its own nature it develops the indefinite possibilities which it contains within itself.
>The Self considered in realtion to a being, is the personality. [...] The personality is an immediate determination. primordial and non-particularized of the principle, which in Sanskrit is called Atma or Paramatma, and which we may call the ''Universal Spirit''.

so it is Personal in this sense, and we, human beings, share the highest degree of personality with that Person, and this is proved by the Incarnation of the Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.14410652]

>>14410591
I get that's how Christian Perennialists interpret that but the quoted text in relation to the assertion that Christian Logos as described by John is a leap of faith that doesn't make sense in as much as Philo claimed the Jews were too Logos which really, everyone is Logos. Why does it have to be limited to Jesus Christ specifically?

[Anonymous No.14410691]

>>14405710
me

[Anonymous No.14410711]

>>14410691
based retard

[Anonymous No.14410717]

>>14410711 (me)

[Anonymous No.14410743]

>>14410717 (us)

[Anonymous No.14410843]

>>14410652
Leap of faith only in the sense of it surpassing reason (and attaining metaphysical intuition). Jesus is the Logos; I don't get your question ''Why is the Logos limited to the Logos''

[Anonymous No.14410873]

>>14410843
Why is Jesus the only Logos and why does his existence proves that there is the Logos(hard mode: prove it without scripture)?

[Anonymous No.14410923]

>>14410873
because he is the Word of God

[Anonymous No.14411050]

>>14410923
Call me a fedora tipper/turbo autist, I just don't find that really compelling once comparative religious studies comes into play and who gets to become a saint or a living embodiment of God kind of deal which exoterically there always will be some level of rejection of other claims of other traditions, guess I'm not really a "T"raditionalist since I only care about what's consistently true in totality so I don't deal with inconsistencies in partial as a part of immutable truth.

[Anonymous No.14411108]

>>14411050
you are the one seeing inconsistencies, they are on your side

[Anonymous No.14411191]

>>14410555
God does not allow permanent union [while in body].
It's definitional, categorical, the One is without body, so logically you can't be the One while in body. To be in union with the Good is to be everyone and everything and no one and no thing. Henosis is to be the very light of the One instead of an "Enlightened Eye" (beyond enlightenment of Nous and Knowledge), but the One is not even the light, not Beauty, not Truth, and not Proportion; yet he is all of these for it is the knowable One.

Even Shankara has the concept of "Jivanmukta", which implies something more of a Faith beyond knowledge that you are already there and have always been ("our" undescended Intellect and Soul) and upon our death the descended shall return to the eternal; this is exactly what Socrates was and talked about, and what Plotinus revealed how to be.
You say Shankara wrote "thousands of pages of how to": the entire Enneads is teaching how, every part of it participates in "how to ascend" since all acts and virtues and goods are inter-connected. And just as I said >>14409740 there's not one way to the Good and the best way is practicing all ways, being the meaning of Proportion and Beauty and Good. Something shankara didn't seem to grasp or at least most easterners only did "navel gazing" (as Anon aptly put it).
The obsession of seeking the One is to obsessively think it as other and different, it's impossible to force Henosis, you fall into it like sleep (except it is the opposite of sleep) and this is to converse with Zeus (shiva).

>Now if this is well said, it is also correct to defend the position that the One is all things. For the Unified of every plurality is a co-aggregate. [And if the Unified] is an all as undifferentiated, just as the plurality is an all as differentiated, and if prior to the unified of each thing, there is a one that is each thing, then as many things as the Unified is, so many things the One is. Indeed, the One is so many things because it has proceeded into so many things. Nor has the One descended into a one, but into a unified, nor has the Unified descended into a unified, but into a distinct totality, and that is obviously where we situate all things. But just as the circle and all the rays deriving from the center converge in the center, so in the Unifi ed is the entire multiplicity of distinction. And according to the same analogy, the center itself and the lines converging in the center and all things equally become single in the One. And in this way we say that all things are the One, and that the One is all things, and still more, because all things are in the One. And yet all things are not exactly the One, while that One by all means is all things.

[Anonymous No.14411331]

>>14410873
>prove it without scripture
Everything we know about jesus comes from scripture. Precluding it is ridiculous. Epistle to the Hebrews is a good start

[Anonymous No.14411387]

>>14411108
I had a wall of text for you but I've decided to keep it to myself and to polish it more. Some things aren't worth sharing on imageboards, you probably know what I mean to a degree.

[Anonymous No.14411424]

>>14411331
The scriptural Jesus is not the historical Jesus which is incompatible with the scriptural Jesus. Of course in many ancient cultures myth and truths are mixed and never really differentiated from one another. This is the problem of a system that gives claims special knowledge outside of the laws of known reality that isn't in any realm like say the claims of a bodily resurrection and bodily ascension.

[Anonymous No.14411612]

>>14411424
>The scriptural Jesus is not the historical Jesus which is incompatible with the scriptural Jesus
There is no reason to believe this

[Anonymous No.14411637]

>>14411387
Sure, I'd like to read here regardless since you put effort in to it.

[Anonymous No.14412030]

>>14410843
>>14410873
In Orthodoxy there's the Logos (personal) and the Logoi (impersonal) .
Called Logoi Doctrine.
Basically Plotinus' Intellect and the Intelligibles.