[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.71 MB, 1500x1500, the gods.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16312435 No.16312435 [Reply] [Original]

woah just realized the gods are real and that divine Plato and all the other ancient polytheists were right all along...

Books for this feel?

>> No.16312440

>>16312435
>books for this feel
Everything gnostic related, now that you took your first step towards the truth you'll only find despair and sorrow from now on

>> No.16312444
File: 6 KB, 275x183, 98F619AA-3603-47E6-BD2B-FA5E8B217B4F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16312444

>Plato
>polytheist

>> No.16312450
File: 33 KB, 317x475, D60AFEBF-C46D-412D-BA8F-2FA0FFBE0D22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16312450

>> No.16312459
File: 13 KB, 453x500, 1435187244039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16312459

>>16312444
>he fell for the Plato was a proto-Christian meme

>> No.16312462

>>16312435
Read Plotinus and never talk about this again.

>> No.16312478

>>16312462
Did Plotinus think polytheists must hide the truth? But why then did he write and teach?

>> No.16312543

>>16312478
Once you read and understand Plotinus you won't be as dazzled by the outer form of Polytheism, but will perceive the divine as an eternal and necessary unity.

>> No.16312555

>>16312543
I think you need to reread Plotinus if you think unity refutes multiplicity.

Plotinus was a devout polytheist. Simple as

>> No.16312596

>>16312478
Neoplatonism is polytheistic monism

>> No.16312638

>>16312555
No, he wasn’t. He acknowledged the existence of daimons and or gods but he knew they were inferior principles. There is even an anecdote he refuses to join a feast of a certain god because he knows this is inferior to what is unconditioned. The egyptian priests knew this as well. You and Op (in case you are not the same person) should read more.

>> No.16312675

>>16312638
>he knew they were inferior principles
There have never in the history of mankind been a polytheist philosopher that did not subscribe to a first principle and monarchia.

I don't know what level of cope someone have to be at to recognize that virtually every philosophically developed polytheist civilization subscribed to some form of monism/non-dualism(be it Greece/Rome/Egypt/India) while at the same time believing that monism/non-dualism in any way contradicts polytheism.

>> No.16312676

>>16312459
>he doesn't know what platonism is

>> No.16312694

>>16312676
I do. It was the theoretical and practical Monistic philosophy of the polytheist Greeks.

>> No.16312695

>>16312675
There have never in the history of mankind been a polytheist philosopher that did not subscribe to a first principle and monarchia.
If by philosopher you also mean the elite priests and theologians, then yes, agreed.

>believing that monism/non-dualism in any way contradicts polytheism.
Nobody is saying this but OP and the other poster think there is a conflict between them and no superior monadic principle, principle of principles. That was clear in the post you're replying to, I don't know why you needed to write this.

>> No.16312754

Everyone currently acting as if there is any tension between polytheism and a spiritually monist foundation needs to step away from the Greeks for a while and read the Bhagavad Gita. I'm not suggesting that anyone converts to Hinduism, but you guys need to do some mental stretching.

>> No.16312805

>>16312754
the thing is that people think the gods were independent, autonomous principles separated from each other and from what conditions them.

>> No.16313020
File: 36 KB, 329x499, 51AsaaWCsFL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16313020

>>16312440
>>16312444
Double fuck off.
>>16312435
Pic related, follow the sticky.

>> No.16313122
File: 866 KB, 1285x2184, DSC_0236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16313122

>>16312805
They are. The conditioning of the One is individuality and freedom and good. Since these are what he is. The principle of uniqueness.
This is also how the One is all things by being nothing, he is every identity and no identity. The differencer and the uniter and individualizer. Each of these three are simultaneously different yet more than One.
The Egyptians got it right in the allegory that the gods are the body parts of God. His hand is not his eye, Hu is not Sia. We are not eachother by being one with him, unity in difference, what need of unity is there without true difference? In a way by denying difference, you not only deny God's eternal fecundity, but also his unity, thus you ironically affirm difference for there's no longer unity.

>> No.16313195
File: 16 KB, 540x274, urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:95563:20160504054333258-0534:76148fig2_9.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16313195

>>16313122
I'm of course also one who doesn't deny body in the heavens, even if it won't be made out of matter or from down here, but of aither mater, then Soul matter, then finally we ascend beyond mind body dualism, not losing any part but the conflict between them becoming One. Plotinus himself speaks of Intelligible Matter, logically there is then Intelligibe Body, as Plato says in Phaedrus we ride our chariots beyond Olympus. We don't cast it aside to fly up with only our wings. For this is what the myth of Icarus is the warning for: our body, our chariot, is merely parts of our whole Soul that descended beneath self-hood, and all of what we were before our fall must rise up for us to be whole. As Damascius defended, the Soul's Nature is Change, which is Life (Zoë), which is the manifestation of the Indefinite Dyad (second Henad) in Intellect.