EXPLAIN NEOPLATONISM TO ME

[Anonymous No.16860147]

EXPLAIN NEOPLATONISM TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOu! WHAT THE FUCK IS THE SELF-QUEST OF THE ONE? WHAT THE FUCK ARE HYPERCOSMIC HENADS? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU.

[Anonymous No.16860184]

[Anonymous No.16860207]

>>16860147
The best book I've read on Neoplatonism is Theophany by Eric Perl. Get that and you'll understand Neoplatonism.

[Anonymous No.16860652]

The One that is the Good is Love which is Providence which is emanation, what the One is is this giving of itself the giving in one sense begets all things and in the same isness returns all things yet this giving which is of itself it is all things.
But these three modes are not the same thing as each-other.
These three modes are made manifest as the first Being which is also all Being being Being itself. We call this the First Intelligible Triad. Plotinus never used this name but expresses completely the same idea. This is Being-Life-Intellect, the manifestation of Remaining Proceeding and Returning. The One, within the Instant, differentiates himself from himself to himself.
These three and all things pre-exist undifferentiated as the Ineffable that is and isn't the consequent hypostasis resulting from taking all hypotheses from the Parmenides as true simultaneously.

The Second Primary Henad, the Indefinite Dyad, that manifests as Life, is Difference itself, difference is the first otherness which is why it is the One, the reasons why are likely endless, by being the first it is like the One who is First, and by being Difference difference is naturally lacking from the First so it can't be different from the Second so therefore they're One. But it's also not different from difference so it is different from the second that now exists, otherwise it would be different from difference, because without a second there can't be difference which causes difference in the One without difference because of what I just said: Unlikeness must exist for the One to be Like unlikeness in order to be unlike unlikeness, otherwise there'd be no unlikeness and All wouldn't be (let alone be One), but Platonism is the affirmation of the Many. All of this is "virtually" within the Indefinite; uncertainty, infinity, difference, division, deconstruction, Dynamis.

The One is not different from itself; the One is not different from others; the One is not
the same as itself; the One is not the same as others.

[Anonymous No.16860680]

>>16860147
mental masturbation by losers desperate to leech off an gullible audience after being bored with judaism

[Anonymous No.16860700]

>>16860680
Nice description of the holy trinity

[Anonymous No.16860722]

>>16860680
Wittgenstein was a brainlet

[Anonymous No.16860753]

>>16860207
Theophany is actually really helping me rn good rec
>>16860652
thank you
>>16860700
didn't Marsilio Ficino and Eckhart manage to reconcile the Trinity with Neoplatonism?

[Anonymous No.16860765]

>>16860680
Judaism is the aborted vassal child of the monotheist Assyrian Empire.

[Anonymous No.16860769]

>>16860147
henads are divisions of space, the quest to the one is meditation

[Anonymous No.16860808]

https://henadology.wordpress.com/philosophy/

[Anonymous No.16860867]

>>16860652
The problem with Neoplatonism that they focus on "God is One" but not "God IS"

[Anonymous No.16860896]

>>16860867
So do christians

[Anonymous No.16860902]

>>16860652
can you help me with one thing? the forms also partake of difference, right? why is it said then that the sensible instances of the forms are between being and non being? being for being something (its form) and non being for being in matter, many, mutable, perishable. but the forms also are many, and each form is different from the other. so why would the forms be said to be what really is if it also has is-not??

[Anonymous No.16860907]

>>16860896
Depends on the author, Aquinas focuses on Gods being first than on his simplicity and one

[Anonymous No.16860912]

>>16860867
huh? IF the One is (which is discussed in the Parmenides) and God is nothing but the One, then God as One is. The difficulty comes from ascribing more to God than that. Creation comes from necessary emanation from the One and so on.

[Anonymous No.16860945]

>>16860147
Thinking is the same as being.

[Anonymous No.16860994]

>>16860907
>Aquinas focuses on Gods
Yeah and through sheer analogy.

[Anonymous No.16861043]

>>16860867
God only "exists" if you refer to the One-Being, not the One.

[Anonymous No.16861066]

>>16860147
>>16860652

[Anonymous No.16861093]

>>16861066
i love how the arm chair intellectuals always end up saying it's ineffable after hundreds of pages of mental ramblings

[Anonymous No.16861157]

>>16861093
Shankara, Guenon, Ibn Arabi all wrote way too much.

>>16860867
>>16860907
One thing Aquinas gets objectively better than Plotinus is the question of creation/emanation. Plotinus' emanation is closer to a creationism, but the ambivalences reveal he has a lot of difficulty explaining why the One would create/emanate without thereby limiting the One.

Always to keep in mind when comparing Aquinas to neoplatonists is analogical vs univocal use of language.

[Anonymous No.16861187]

>>16861157
>the ambivalences reveal he has a lot of difficulty explaining why the One would create/emanate without thereby limiting the One.
Describing the uncreated cause of the universe in the most comprehensible way for humans is indeed difficult.

[Anonymous No.16861307]

>>16861043
Whats the difference between the two?

[Anonymous No.16861400]

>>16860147
>To the neo-Platonists, on the other hand, matter or the real material world in general is no longer binding and real. Fatherland, family, worldly ties, and goods in general, which the ancient Peripatetic philosophy still regarded as belonging to man’s happiness —all this is nothing for the neo-Platonic sage. To him, death is even better than corporeal life; he holds the body as not belonging to his essence; he translocates blissfulness exclusively in the soul while he detaches himself completely from all corporeal, in short, external things. But where man has nothing left outside himself, there he seeks and finds everything within himself; there he puts the imaginary and intelligible world in place of the real world so that the former contains everything that is there in the latter, but only in an abstract and imagined way. Even matter is to be found in the immaterial world of the neo-Platonists, but only as something ideated, conceived, and imaginary. And where man has no longer a being that is given outside himself, there he sets up a being in his thought, which, although an ideated entity, has neverthe less the qualities of a real entity, which as a non-sensuous entity is at the same time a sensuous bang, and which as a theoretical object is at the same time a practical object This being is God—the highest good of the neo-Platonists.
Cf. Feuerbach, The Principles of Philosophy of Future

[Anonymous No.16861425]

>>16861400
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16861438]

>>16861400
Based

[Anonymous No.16861511]

>>16861187
Yes, it is difficult. Aquinas was up to it though, not quite Plotinus. In fact Plotinus at times comes dangerously close to dualism. I'm half convinced that Porphyry did butcher something in the transmission of Plotinus' writings. Maybe one day we will find Eustochius' edition of Plotinus in tact in a Roman basement somewhere.

[Anonymous No.16861550]

>>16861400
neo-Platonism is really the Hollywood version of Judaism

[Anonymous No.16861565]

>>16861400
oh the classical crass dualist misinterpreation of platonism.
>feuerbach
explains a lot

[Anonymous No.16861578]

>>16861565
>oh the classical crass dualist misinterpreation of platonism.
?

[Anonymous No.16861651]

>>16861578
there is no ''two different worlds'' in platonism. the intelligible is not located in some place, apart from the sensible thing, and there is no sensible thing without the intelligible. there is no spatial transcendence but ontological.

[Anonymous No.16861713]

>>16861651
there is no difference between the two, as is clear from Fs comment

[Anonymous No.16861756]

>>16861713
care to you explain how Feuerbach's commentary on platonism does not posit a difference between the two? he puts a division between sensible and intelligible, life and post-life
>matter or the real material world in general is no longer binding and real.
opposition of sensible x intelligible
>death is even better than corporeal life
opposition of life x postlife
>he holds the body as not belonging to his essence
opposition of body x intellect/soul
>he translocates blissfulness exclusively in the soul
opposition of bliss in the world x bliss in the soul or in the ''intelligible world''
>he detaches himself completely from all corporeal, in short, external things

>where man has nothing left outside himself,
there is no inside or outside

and so on

[Anonymous No.16861786]

>>16861713
>>16861756
oh what is still more dumb in his commentary is that he suggests an opposition between the objective in the real world and the imagination in the soul
>in the immaterial world of the neo-Platonists, but only as something ideated, conceived, and imaginary

when this is missing the basics of what plato and all platonists refer, that an eidos is not a subjective distillation, it does not vary from man to man, nor each eidos differ from their own instances. the forms, eide, have being in the fullest sense and because of them the sensible things have intelligibility, that is: being

[Anonymous No.16861833]

>>16861756
There is no difference between the two from the standpoint of the neo-Platonist, or rather there is no two, but one, the omni-potent isolated mind, thought

[Anonymous No.16861853]

>>16861833
yes and how is this ''clear from the Fs comment''?

[Anonymous No.16861859]

>>16861853
because that's what he says?

[Anonymous No.16862006]

>>16861859
then explain his divisions as said here >>16861756
>>16861786

[Anonymous No.16862122]

>>16862006
In platonist view, there is no opposition in these, while in actuality it is only so because of his comprehension of abstractions only. For example, for Feuerbach, there is a contradiction between life and afterlife, or rather between thought and matter (which he resolves through I-and-Thou), but from his materialist view, Platonist lack of this distinction is in putting thought over matter, and matter as attribute of thought (which for Feuerbach is also the key characteristic of Christian philosophy in general

[Anonymous No.16862173]

>>16862122
>In platonist view, there is no opposition
> for Feuerbach, there is a contradiction between life and afterlife
this is what ive been saying since my first post in reply to feuerbach's commentary, but you kept replying that this indistinction between opposites was clear in feuerbach.
like i said, feuerbach misses completely what platonism conveys and poses a crass dualism.

[Anonymous No.16862213]

>>16862173
The indistinction between spatial and ontological transcendence in platonic was clear from his comment.
I would very much disagree, he conveys it perfectly well, though his own theory is questionable

[Anonymous No.16862240]

>>16862213
you are literally contradicting what you have just said.
i asked you thrice and i'll do it one last time: how does feuerbach's commentary not pose opposition, as pointed here >>16861756, how does his reduction of the ontological character of the forms of instances to ''something ideated, conceived, and imaginary'' conveys it perfectly well? you are either trolling or you are a utter retard.

don't answer with what i said about platonism having no two worlds, no separation etc. adress each of feuerbach's point of oppositions as i made in that prior post

[Anonymous No.16862285]

>>16862240
>how does his reduction of the ontological character of the forms of instances to ''something ideated, conceived, and imaginary'' conveys it perfectly well
Because that is what they are. You are not seriously looking at platonism on its own, and not as a step in the larger historical development, right? If you are, you must change that immediately. Feuerbach hits the spot of essence of christian philosophy (though he doesn't do anything good with that).

>adress each of feuerbach's point of oppositions as i made in that prior post
I have no intent on doing that, that is moronic. Feuerbach is very clear in and of himself and needs no further explanation of each line. The only thing worth discussing is the essence of his argument.

[Anonymous No.16862290]

>>16861093
if whatever is the cause of everything nothing can be truly prescribed to it for that is something posterior to him

[Anonymous No.16862351]

>>16862285
>If you are, you must change that immediately.
there are no ideas not already addressed or presented by the neoplatonists, everything of the past 500 years has been a slow rediscovery still incomplete.
Try me, show me something original and true.

[Anonymous No.16862367]

>>16860765
Give me the date of picrel.

[Anonymous No.16862385]

>>16862351
Original? No, everything is in some way derived from past thinkers. True? Egoism.

[Anonymous No.16862483]

>>16862285
>Because that is what they are
So you think that the Forms are nothing but something just imagined and thus, they don't have anything to do with their instances?

>Feuerbach is very clear in and of himself and needs no further explanation of each line.
I agree, that is why for me it was explicit that he misunderstood completely Platonism and rejected metaphysics for his own ideological leanings.

>The only thing worth discussing is the essence of his argument.
You replied to my first post with ''?'' when I was saying that Feuerbach's forces a dualism in Platonism, I showed you exactly, in his words, how he does it and how this is a misinterpretation. On the contrary, you just repeat yourself. You must be trolling.

[Anonymous No.16862532]

>>16862483
>So you think that the Forms are nothing but something just imagined and thus, they don't have anything to do with their instances?
Feuerbach certainly does think that

>he misunderstood completely Platonism and rejected metaphysics for his own ideological leanings.
He properly approached the dissolution of religion but improperly dealt with it. You're saying baloney

>you just repeat yourself
Becase you keep misunderstanding my words

[Anonymous No.16862635]

>>16861400
No, fuck you and your deceit.
Men tend to bestow the name of virtue on a life of inactivity, but
I do not agree with this view. For the virtue which engages in the
midst of public life through political activity and discourse fortifies
the soul and strengthens through exercise what is healthy and
perfect, while the impure and false element that lurks in human
lives is fully exposed and more easily set on the road to
improvement. And indeed politics offers great possibilities for
doing what is good and useful; also for courage and firmness. That
is why the learned, who sit in their comer and philosophise at
iength and in a grand manner about justice and moderation, utterly
disgrace themselves if they are compelled to take some action. Thus
bereft of action, all discourse appears vain and empty.

And so, having been
summoned by this king to share in the administration of public a¡airs, I
did that which both Socrates praised and Plato admired. And, having
taken charge of one of the eyes of the earth, I did not, my friend,
become more earthbound, nor have I cast philosophy away but I have set
my hand to productive labour. [XXVIII] You hear that Hercules the
son of Zeus was such a great man, not because he made precise
distinctions between conclusive and inconclusive arguments, but because
he prevented lawlessness, [and] because he did not permit the bestial
elements of human nature to prevail. I then imitated Iolaus and have
been for a time servant to Callinices, and had the common hearth in my
care. I have not wasted my labour, nor is it less fitting for this to be the
case than for me to have persevered with geometrical diagrams. Plato
did not ‘descend’ by sailing three times over the Ionian sea for Dion,
nor did Aristotle by taking thought for the people of Stageira, nor did
Carneades nor Critolaus on their embassies for Attica...
[XXX] Do not therefore hold fastto the literal word, and do not,
just because Plato in the Republic teases those who descend from the
divine sphere of contemplation to the human with this clever little phrase,
think that it is of no importance to take part in public affairs. Rather,
realise that ‘up’ and ‘down’ are not unqualified terms.
Epicurus was of small account, together
with any of his disciples who admires the pleasures of the flesh.
But Plato is always up, and so too he who follows Plato, in trying to become
like God. We are in the middle ground, happy if at one moment we
may be up and at another down. Yet, for us, down is not completely
so, but is dependent on and directed from above.

[Anonymous No.16862643]

>>16862367
at least 1200 BC
pre-akhenaten

[Anonymous No.16862645]

>>16862635
nigger

[Anonymous No.16862689]

>>16862532
>Feuerbach does think that
Yes and this is failing to understand the basics of platonism, and so, leads to misunderstanding the intelligible forms and their instances in the empirical world as opposites. that is why he is all the time positing opposition between the objetive external world and the subjective internal soul, when there is no internal and external world

>he approached the dissolution of religion
this is irrelevant to the issue here but it is obvious he had no idea what religion really was (fyi platonism, philosophy, metaphysics are, if not religious, very akin to it and one converges to the other).

>you misunderstand my words
I asked you how there is no misunderstanding and dualism in feuerbach's retarded interpretation you replied thrice here >>16861833, >>16861713 and here >>16862122, literally repeating what I said about platonism: that there is no opposition as the retarded nihilist says in his misinterpretation.
I showed to you point by point how the nihilist posits something inexistent in the philosophy he is interpretating and asked you to address each point of contradiction made by the materialist nihilist and your response was: ''that is moronic'' when this is the very issue at hand.

Thank for reminding me to avoid this place.

[Anonymous No.16862697]

>>16862635
platonist anon, respond this >>16860902 please

[Anonymous No.16862710]

>>16862645

[Anonymous No.16862756]

>>16860147
Exitus et reditus

[Anonymous No.16862778]

>>16862689
>that is why he is all the time positing opposition between the objetive external world and the subjective internal soul, when there is no internal and external world
You did not deny that there is no soul, ie your proved Feuerbach right

>he had no idea what religion really was
Nothing (but your own measly words) suggests so

>the nihilist
I dont think its smart to take you seriously at this point, but I'll do it for fun.
I already explained that in the first one I was referring to spacial vs ontological transcendence, and I my other comment is perfectly clear.
They do exist "in the philosophy he is interpreting", I already explained to you that you cant look at itin its own.

>Thank for reminding me to avoid this place.
It is my pleasure to filter pseuds off this board

[Anonymous No.16862854]

>>16860902
Difference isn't nonbeing. All Being and Non-being(s) are only called 'Non-being' in relation to the One, in the sense that compared to him they are non-existent, since they are in some sense negations and privations of the Good, and if not for him they wouldn't be at all.
In-fact one could (should) assert that the One is Difference itself, for to give Identity (individuality) is to differentiate a uniqueness from all else, including from God himself, and by this very universal sharing in difference we are ""paradoxically"" established as One. No sameness without difference, no difference without sameness.

[Anonymous No.16862855]

>>16862778
>You did not deny that there is no soul, ie your proved Feuerbach right
intelligibles, intellect and intellection are one and the same. there is nothing material, matter is only something when it has a form ''imprinteed'' upon it, it needs intelligibility to be something and to be apprehended at all. you are mentally ill, this had nothing to do with the issue at hand you dumbfuck

>nothing suggests so
literally separated his sentences one by one showing how he is as retarded as you

>spacial vs ontological transcendece
you are so dumb you still didnt even understand my point: there is no spatial transcendence.

[Anonymous No.16862866]

>>16860147
I saw the caps and I thought it was the trip dude but he isn't a retard like OP is.

[Anonymous No.16862875]

>>16862855
Do you even read what you're posting? Everything you just said is how Feuerbach described it, and as how I explained it here >>16862122

[Anonymous No.16862882]

>>16860207
>(((Perl)))

[Anonymous No.16862887]

>>16862854
>>16860902
>>16862697
Non-being is also not nothing in the absolute sense rather it is the Limit of privation from Being, or rather absolutely indefinite, but even here there's positive quality, the quality that emerges by lack of all other quality. Only an absolute opposite can receive the other completely, everything in-between already has something of both. This is Matter.

[Anonymous No.16862937]

>>16862875
There you said
>''In platonist view, there is no opposition in these, while in actuality it is only so because of his comprehension of abstractions only''.
The forms aren't abstractions, but Feuerbach's thinks that as is clear in this post >>16861400
(and being clear he misses a basic point of platonism) and confirmed by you here >>16862532, vouching for Feuerbach's own words opposing death and life, external world and internal world, intellect and sensual objects.

Then you proceeded to say that
>for Feuerbach, there is a contradiction between life and afterlife, or rather between thought and matter
and that Platonists ''put thought over matter'' when I literally addressed this here >>16862855.

I responded to each of your lunatic and insanely retarded affirmations, like those of Feuerbach's. You did not respond to what I posited to you, instead you said ''no i won't address it this is moronic''.

[Anonymous No.16863089]

>>16862937
They are abstractions, I use them interchangeably. He doesnt miss the point of platonism, he reveals the essence of it.

Platonists did put thought over matter, you yourself have just said that matter is an attribute/something o come out of forms (thought)

I sad I wont do explain it line-by-line, but at thid point, after addressing your points again and again, it does feel a bit moronic.

[Anonymous No.16863162]

>>16863089
>They are abstractions, I use them interchangeably.
You use different words with different meanings interchangeably? I knew you were retarded but this is beyond my expectations. You don't even know what abstraction means:
>abstraction
abstractio, abstraho, ab-traho
ab- (from) traho (I drag, I bring, I extract)

This is the very materialist error. They think the Forms are from the instances, that being is from matter when it is the opposite. Thus, there is a crass misunderstanding. You can keep coping repeating that a materialist understood sophisticated metaphysics all you want, it is a relief someone this dumb is not on the same level.

>Platonists did put thought over matter, you yourself have just said that matter is an attribute/something o come out of forms (thought).
Again: you don't even understand what I'm saying. There is only matter in intelligibility, otherwise it is unintelligible and inexistent.

[Anonymous No.16863250]

>>16863162
>using dictionary definitions

>You can keep coping repeating that a materialist understood sophisticated metaphysics all you want
>sophisticated
You can pretend its some esoteric divine knowledge of whatever, but the world has moved on, and philosophy has too. And we have unlocked every secret of your "sophisticated metaphysics".
Nice cope though

[Anonymous No.16863277]

>>16862854
>Difference isn't nonbeing
Doesn't the conclusion in Sophist say that Non-being is difference, and thus all things are what they are but at the same time are not what others are.

>All Being and Non-being(s) are only called 'Non-being' in relation to the One
So the Forms still are not Being itself for they have this non-being, difference, in them to be what each of them are? But then not even Being itself will be Being itself since it will be different from what is not Being itself.

[Anonymous No.16863306]

>>16863250
>using dictionary definitions
I'm sorry if it is annoying to you to actually know the meaning of the words you utter.

>we have unlocked every secret
you people don't even know what abstraction means and think the very opposite metaphysics is what it is.

[Anonymous No.16863309]

>>16860765
>Judaism is the aborted vassal child of the monotheist Assyrian Empire.
muh ineffable

dimwit religion

[Anonymous No.16863316]

>>16860652
In english doc

[Anonymous No.16863352]

>>16860184
This is weirdly accurate.

[Anonymous No.16863384]

>>16863352
actually it isn't. the picture explicitly affirms a separation between the form and the instance when the instance is only that particular instance because of its form. without its form (beauty) that thing would not be what it is (beautiful)

[Anonymous No.16863478]

>>16863306
>implying you need dictionary to know the meaning of words
No wonder why you think that platonism is "sophisticated metaphysics"

[Anonymous No.16863575]

>>16863478
lmao you are insane anon

[Anonymous No.16863658]

>>16862778
The gnostics were right.

[Anonymous No.16863685]

>>16860184
And then Aristotle comes along and demonstrates the cosplayer to be a trap and that the mens' cameras have no SD cards.

[Anonymous No.16863715]

>>16862778
>spacial vs ontological transcendenc
How are either real?

[Anonymous No.16863749]

>>16863658
in that there are hylic people like the person to which you replied? then yes they were

[Anonymous No.16864201]

>>16861400
How is it possible to misunderstand Platonism this badly? Feuerbach was an absolute brainlet.

[Anonymous No.16864214]

>>16862635
Feuerbach never actually read Plotinus, he just used secondary sources

[Anonymous No.16864381]

>>16864214
How do you know that? Did you just make it up as your idealist philosophy just makes shit up?

[Anonymous No.16864661]

>>16864214
>>16864201
Nice try, but its still just cope because Feuerbach destroyed your little world with one paragraph.

[Anonymous No.16864959]

>>16864201
It's not misunderstanding to say you disagree with it. His characterization is negative and critical, but he's not essentially wrong. Just be honest and say that he's right, "and that's a good thing" otherwise stop crying and shut up.

[Anonymous No.16864976]

>>16862882
Based namer

[Anonymous No.16864977]

>>16864214
He's completely right and it applies to most of Sufism and Advaita Vedanta too.

[Anonymous No.16864987]

>>16860753
>didn't Marsilio Ficino and Eckhart manage to reconcile the Trinity with Neoplatonism?
Yes

[Anonymous No.16865004]

What is it with you autists and just vomiting out formattingless verbal diarrhea that's completely unrelated to anything? Look at this shit:
>>16862635
>>16861066
>>16860652
Guenonfag does this too. It is actually unironic autism? No one is going to say "oh well, I asked a simple question and got given seven pages of gibberish, guess I'll just say he was right" if you never state your fucking opinion, and anyone who reads the blob anyways is just going to see that it has nothing to do with what was said and just write you off as some escapee from /x/.

[Anonymous No.16865055]

>>16864959
>>16864661
materialist atheists as always enraged attacking with their characteristic dogmatism simple facts presented against them.
That Feuerbach misunderstood completely Platonism, metaphysics and religion is obvious from reading Plato's dialogues and the Platonists or even secondary sources on platonism. But since you people don't read anything,
>>16863162
>>16862937
>>16862855
>>16862689
>>16861786
these posts showed how retarded he was and likewise how you are

[Anonymous No.16865073]

>>16864987
Does he do this in a particular text? It's difficult finding good editions of Ficino's writing.

[Anonymous No.16865081]

>>16865055
>i haven't read anything by plato, but my opinion is very important!
no it isnt. start with lysis.

[Anonymous No.16865111]

>>16865055
>That Feuerbach misunderstood completely Platonism, metaphysics and religion is obvious from reading Plato's dialogues and the Platonists or even secondary sources on platonism. But since you people don't read anything,

I'm not a materialist atheist and calling me that or waving away Feuerbach with "haha so dumb xD" doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.16865120]

>>16860147
I prefer Technoprimitivism.

[Anonymous No.16865147]

>>16863316
Seethe

[Anonymous No.16865151]

>>16865111
well there are explanations in this thread about how feuerbach was a dumbfuck. you can repeat all you want your dogmatism that he is right, until you say anything relevant, you nihilists remain refuted.

[Anonymous No.16865231]

>>16865151
No, you just want Feuerbach to accept your language and on your terms.

[Anonymous No.16865494]

>>16865073
probably in the Platonic Theology
Tatti Renaissance Library is very good

[Anonymous No.16865513]

>>16860907
terrible apprehension of Aquinas
God's firstness is predicated on his simplicity for Aquinas
its indistinguishable for his which is evidently the case due to his Aristotelianism and Proclean influence

[Anonymous No.16866197]

stfu seb

[Anonymous No.16868334]

>>16865513
The simplicity of God is a necessary result of Neoplatonic metaphysics

[Anonymous No.16868425]

>>16865147
No reason to be rude anon, I was just kidding

[Anonymous No.16868626]

>>16865004
>>16862290
>>16863309
>>16863316
A meme OP demands for lazy answers.
All those pages are the logical consequences of a true absolute first cause of everything that is possible to distinguish.

[Anonymous No.16869883]

>>16860147
The ultimate enemy of Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.16869892]

>>16860184
>t. never read plato

[Anonymous No.16869988]

>>16869883
Why do poltards feel the need to mark words with these tasteless triple brackets? Do they think that I, a reader of their posts, am a fool, incapable of grasping subtle irony and hints at someone's subversive nature?

[Anonymous No.16870017]

>>16865004
> Guenonfag does this too
The sophist Buddhists that Guenonfag is always defeating in debates left and right are the real perpetrators of such behavior