/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16797435]

You are now aware there are people browsing this board who haven't read the Enneads

[Anonymous No.16797439]

>>16797435
lol what a fucking retard couldn't even spell The Aeneid properly lmao

[Anonymous No.16797460]

>>16797439
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.16797464]

>>16797435
Everyone should read it, but it's by no means as essential as someone like Plato. Wouldn't he be more fitting an example, also considering the Neolplatonist relation to him?

[Anonymous No.16797466]

>>16797464
Plotinus brings Platos philosophy to it's completion. It is the most sublime piece of philosophy the western mind has ever produced.

[Anonymous No.16797509]

>>16797466
>Plotinus brings Platos philosophy to it's completion.
Not at all, he may complete parts of him but he's still pretty fundamentally doing something different to Plato. There are at least a few pretty important examples I could think of where they blatantly don't understand Plato, but not to blame them, they're doing something different and to be fair were not given the same tools to be able to see what they didn't understand.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16797530]

>>16797435
Is this like the phone book to heaven?

[Anonymous No.16797718]

>>16797435
I'm doing a deep dive on Plotinus right now.

Just need to reread Protagoras and Parmenides and actually read De Anima and Metaphysics. Want to read the full Moralia of Plutarch first as well. Anything I'm missing?

[Anonymous No.16797731]

>>16797435
i have much much much more important things to do like reading capital for instance

[Anonymous No.16798272]

>>16797509
Then go on and explain how they don't get Plato.

>>16797718
You will be fine with Plato and Aristotle's Categories, De Anima and Metaphysics. Plutarch's Moralia is not essential, but I am interested in reading it as well.

[Anonymous No.16799471]

>>16797718

I'd consider reading over the pre-Socratic fragments. Plotinus draws on many of those guys--Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, etc.

[Anonymous No.16799506]

>>16797530
You need to stop mixing wine with SSRIs.

[Anonymous No.16800432]

>>16798272
>Then go on and explain how they don't get Plato.
Well, to give one example most prescient because of it being in arguably Plato's most important dialogue, and being a judgement as to what section is its proper culmination, there is an entire looking in the wrong way! And not just abstractable ideas so much, but again, a different spirit.

Nevertheless of those specific ideas I shall begin, they take the first hypotheses of the Parmenides as the culmination of the dialogue, with the indefinable One and all that, instead of the Third. And in this way, not just misses a certain major positive content of revelation, but the act of the greatest revelation known to man in philosophy, the mystery stated, the question that contents; the all-encompassing nature of questions in which it ends with.

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both inrelation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].

What Neoplatonist ever understood this? As beautiful as they were.

[Anonymous No.16801896]

>>16797466
read more, hippy

[Anonymous No.16801903]

>>16800432
good post

[Anonymous No.16801904]

You are now aware that you're breathing manually.

[Anonymous No.16801930]

>>16801903
Thank you anon.

>>16801904
Haha! You see I have learnt to not react to that.

[Anonymous No.16802317]

>>16798272
Damn I was hoping I could avoid reading Aristotle's works on logic. I can't be the only one that finds logic boring as fuck, right? I mean isn't it easier just to learn logic just by debating people on 4chan? Thanks for the info.

>>16799471
Thanks will do

[Anonymous No.16802551]

>>16797530
Why are you still here

[Anonymous No.16802602]

[Anonymous No.16802644]

>>16797435
Which are the essential Enneads? I've only read a few parts

>>16801904
I appreciate it. My breaths are better when they are manual, but eventually I get tired of it and switch back to the automatic mode. Goal is to get the automatic breathing to be of the same quality, but for that it's going to take a lot more training and reminders like these.

[Anonymous No.16802960]

>>16802602
>Thomas Taylor translation
Based
>>16802644
Uždavinys has a compilation of "The Essential Enneads"

[Anonymous No.16803166]

>>16800432
>they take the first hypotheses of the Parmenides as the culmination of the dialogue, with the indefinable One and all that, instead of the Third.
How do they do it?

>not just misses a certain major positive content of revelation, but the act of the greatest revelation known to man in philosophy, the mystery stated, the question that contents; the all-encompassing nature of questions in which it ends with.
I agree most of the platonists expose Plato's doctrines in a rational a different way from Plato, but that does not imply in any way the separation from the founding Mystery of all the ''system''. The Ineffable is emphasized in Damascius, for example, and I do wonder how your description affects Plotinus' Enneads.

[Anonymous No.16803226]

>>16802317
I think only reading the Categories will be enough. It is short and not that bad.

[Anonymous No.16804089]

>>16802602
Whats Proclus commentary like? Is it good?

[Anonymous No.16805754]

>>16803226
Based

[Anonymous No.16805955]

>>16803166
>How do they do it?
I don't know what you're asking anon. But they take the indefinability of the One, the One being the Neoplatonists big thing, in the first hypothesis of the dialogue, as the proper culmination.

>I agree most of the platonists expose Plato's doctrines in a rational a different way from Plato, but that does not imply in any way the separation from the founding Mystery of all the ''system''. The Ineffable is emphasized in Damascius, for example, and I do wonder how your description affects Plotinus' Enneads.
I definitely think they show and expound on a lot of really great things in Plato, and have their own unique value of course, but when it comes to a raw questioning of ontology and being, they just don't get as close. I'll have to check out Damascius more, but from what I'm guessing, it's [the Ineffable] much more the religious sense of reverence; not to devalue that either as its unique place.

Sadly I don't know much about their exact systemisations yet, but I know a few key differences between them and Plato.

[Anonymous No.16806673]

>>16797435
You are now aware that Eustochius published his own edition of the Enneads because he thought Porphyry was not faithful to Plotinus' thought.

[Anonymous No.16806721]

>>16797435
>>16797466
>>16802644
Plotinus couldn't hold a candle to a one of Shankara's farts. The fact that he would try to construct some metaphysical system on the talks of some random guy who never even clearly stated during his life whether he agreed with it - LMAO what a joke, meanwhile my nigga Shankara revealed the supreme truth of the Aryan scriptures. Shankara is also way more lucid and logical than Plotinus, he completely btfos like 5 or 6 different schools of Hindu philosophy along with Jains and Buddhists all at the same time without breaking a sweat while all Plotinus does is whine and bitch and some gnostics etc. To compare the value of them let's just see what happened to them, Neoplatonism got absorbed into the opposing doctrine of Christianity and finally was cucked out of existence by Christian authorities while Shankara is revered across India and most Indian Philosophy after him is just a modification of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.16806771]

>>16797435
Don't have translation in my language

[Anonymous No.16807162]

>>16804089

>Whats Proclus commentary like? Is it good?
He basically goes over the positions of his predecessors in great detail while doing close readings of Plato. It's very comfy. Here's a random sample.

[Anonymous No.16807174]

>>16806721
shoo poo

[Anonymous No.16807185]

>>16806721
Ramanuja and Madhva are both far superior to Shankara's sloppy metaphysics.