>one of the most elegant and beautiful metaphysics ever devised

Sounds good. Where do I start?

>>588199
His Enneads if you wanna dive into the deep end. Read his wiki page if you wanna get a solid overview

File: image.jpg (100KB, 571x714px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 571x714px

>tfw golden soul

>puff pieces

>>588264
Why does all occultic shit have to have snake symbols?
Sending the wrong message tbeh.

>>588355
The snake is a symbol of knowledge

You still to invent a special magical divine being too solve our existential problems though right? No thanks.

>>588215
Don't start with Plotinus. Start with Plato -- Plotinus would agree.

>>589768
Existential Problems are for fucking redditors.

>>588215
Oh and read the SEP article on him not the wikipedia one.

>>589768
>magical divine being
>Neoplatonism

Confirmed for not even knowing what the op is about. thanks for your stock fedora response citizen

>>589756
I know, but what a shitty symbol.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (263KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1920x1080px

>Why aren't you Neoplatonist yet /his/?

I am. God-Tier philosophy.


>>588199

Read Plato in general, the books of metaphysic of Aristotle, the wikipedia page of stoicism and, go along with the enneads, a book written under the spirit of the One.

So are you guys axiarchists as well?

What's the tl;dr of it?

File: snakeself[1].jpg (30KB, 550x370px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x370px

>>589756

why though? They're not exactly smart critters.

>>591366
Read the SEP article

The Republic is one of my favorite religious books because it is compatible, in some aspects, with Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, even.

>>591366
The world is fundamentally good and intelligent, all of our souls are sparks of a transcendent unity called the One that emanates reality as impersonally as the sun gives off light. All beauty and goodness in this reality are reflections of the perfect Beauty and Goodness of the One. Evil exists but it is the exception and not the rule.

>>591398
What's the evidence for it?

>>591373
For one Gnostic conception of the serpent as the good guy who wants to liberate humanity from the clutches of the Demiurge via arcane knowledge. That's the only detailed reason I know of, as the symbolism predates even Christianity I believe

>>591407
The very self-evident assertion that all reality originates from an ultimate source, among other things

>>591426
It's not self-evident to me, do tell more.

>>591638
Not him but you'd be best of reading the SEP article on him

>>591638
You really need to read the Enneads if you're interested but specifically:

The contingent, ephemeral, and phenomenal cannot account for its own existence, or else you're telling me, say, a tree, literally willed itself into existence completely independent of the conditions that dictate its survival somehow. The ground and principle of reality lies outside of reality.

If reality exists, there was a potentiality for it to exist. The One is that potentiality.

In the finite, man can conceive of the infinite. The temporal suggests the eternal. The manifest suggests the unmanifest. Everywhere we encounter the staggering diversity of phenomena but are at a loss to explain the true nature of these phenomena themselves, outside of purely quantitative descriptions of their properties and relations to other phenomena.

>>591692

>The ground and principle of reality lies outside of reality.

This ain't nothing but Plato, bro

>The temporal suggests the eternal

MORE PLATO, GET OUT

>>591723
He's a Neoplatonist, no shit.

>>588110
Compatible philosophies that one could align with? For example Taoism?

>>588110
>>blew Gnosticism the fuck out
Do tell more.

>>591770
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Plotinus5.html

>>591723
Nice argument

>he's a le dead white guy who didn't even have an iPhone argument debunked!!! XDD

>>588110
Neoplatonism might be interesting, but will ultimately lead one straight to hell.

>>591789
Plotinus was a great influence to many Christian philosophers like Augustine, Boethius, Johns Scotus, Bonaventure etcetera

File: 1453363298249.jpg (78KB, 340x314px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 340x314px

>>591789
>having a vindictive little toddler as a god

But it labors under a complete misapprehension of Aristotle's concepts of potentiality and actuality.

Besides, claiming that God's existence, and his essence isn't the same thing is just begging the question why anyone should even believe the concept in the first place.

Is Rei our generation's Plotinus?

>>591420
Different anon here...

You're thinking of the Ophites, or maybe the Sethians who focused their theology on demonizing the Demiurge, the rest of Gnosticism either reveres the Architect, the Monad, or reviles the Archons (serpent in the garden included).

>>591803
>>591789
>if you make a philosophical position about the infinite, you must be talking about the Abrahamic god
>thankfully my superior fedora tipping skills can knock down this mock strawman that I constructed
Literal shitposting, and is of no relevance to this thread.

It's idolatrous and hateful of the material

>>591795
Not a good influence.

>>589777
>Existential Problems are for fucking redditors.

What makes you say that?

>>591426
The fact that reality comes from a single source doesn't imply unity. Two brothers come from the same source, and can wind up murdering one another all the same; there is no unity to be seen there.

>>592968
You're thinking of Gnosticism. Plotinus argued that the material world is not inherently evil. At least adequately comprehend the philosophy you are critiquing before responding.

>>592971
>To the Christian, the Other World was the Kingdom of Heaven, to be enjoyed after death; to the Platonist, it was the eternal world of ideas, the real world as opposed to that of illusory appearance. Christian theologians combined these points of view, and embodied much of the philosophy of Plotinus. [...] Plotinus, accordingly, is historically important as an influence in moulding the Christianity of the Middle Ages and of theology.
Bertrand Russell.

>>592491
Probably, unfortunately

>>592982
No, we're talking about the unity of their origin, not any inherent unity or brotherhood in the physical universe. It's the nature of individuated reality to fuck itself up. But even those brothers have to remember they were created in the same womb

>>593041
>But even those brothers have to remember they were created in the same womb

What difference does that actually make if they should murder each other?

>>593051
All the difference for everyone else

>>593051
The unity exists within the One, not within the material world, obviously.

>should
You mean they choose to.

>>593056
Yet none on any level but a purely subjective, personal one. If the onlookers choose to disregard their kinship, the fact they were brothers would mean nothing. Their brotherhood has life only in so far as people choose to give it life.

>>592990


>t Russell
I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic

>>593061
But here we get back to the original question, what evidence is there of this? The shared origins of all creation don't imply any sort of unity.

>>592990
>You're thinking of Gnosticism
All Platonism about leaving the material behind.

>>593068
>that somehow changes anything
Yes, because Catholics are the only kind of Christian around, hurr durr.

>>593070
You do understand that the scientific method came about over a thousand years after Plotinus lived, right?

Philosophical discussions utilize reason and logic.

>>593072
Yes, because Christian theology never states the same thing by accepting Christ and going to heaven, to leave the evil Satanic world behind.

>>593082
That's fine, but we're also discussing this over a thousand years after Plotinus lived. I'm quite happy to read his philosophy, but it should still stand on its own merits in our current understanding of reality.

>>593093
>physical proof for a metaphysical cosmology


Ayy bruh bruh

File: Aristotle on maturity.jpg (47KB, 350x417px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 350x417px

>>593093
>stand on its own merits
Which are the merits of reason and logic.

>>593098
I'm not asking for physical proof. Just evidence.

>>593102
So, what logic and reason backs it then?

>>593105
>So, what logic and reason backs it then?
I'm going to understand this as you not having read the works of Plotinus, which are an addendum or further explanation of the works derived from the Academy of Plato.

If you had read them, you wouldn't need to ask.

>>593109
Of course not, I'm an uneducated passerby. The Republic is on my reading list, and I've added Plotinus.

But I'd express doubt that there is any work so fundamentally sound that just reading it at all would convince me of its internal validity; if there were such a work, there would surely be no dissent after such a long time.

>>593116
>But I'd express doubt that there is any work so fundamentally sound that just reading it at all would convince me of its internal validity; if there were such a work, there would surely be no dissent after such a long time.
Of course, because it is, in a way, self-refuting. Add on top of this that since what constitutes human rational thought has changed over several thousand years, then Plotinus fits in his historical context, but his works are by no means debunked or erroneous in our modern age.

I'm not exactly sure where you may be coming from, but these works do include spirituality included via Nous, or knowing/intellect, and this is how the One is known. It does require that the reader have an interest in spiritual ideas, even if they are very abstract compared to most other metaphysics, philosophies, or belief structures.

To use this example; if you don't accept or show an interest in the soul, then its irrelevant to discuss it anyway.

>>593135
>To use this example; if you don't accept or show an interest in the soul, then its irrelevant to discuss it anyway.

So, basically I have to be willing to entertain the premise before we can even discuss the conclusions derived from that premise. Makes sense. For what it's worth, I will look into his work.

So where to start with Platon? The Republic?

Also, have you read any Gadamer? Good secondary sources for Platonism/neo-Platonism?

>>594611
The SEP article is brilliant

>>594611
Don't read too many secondary sources on your first read through. The SEP articles will do.

Read this for a Intro to Plato (Timaeus and Critias are important for Neo-Platonism): Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Theaetetus, Symposium, Republic, Timaeus, Critias.

Or you could just read all his works in the Thrasyllus Order.

>>588110
I'd suggest Aristotle too, especially "Of The Soul"
That text is amazing on topics of the sould and of the spirit.

>>594621
>>594637
Thanks. I know Aristotle pretty well but never studied Plato in depth.

Gadamer piqued my interest in Platonism. He did a lot of work bringing Aristotle closer to Plato and defending Plato against Heidegger's critique.

>>589778
What Is Sep?

>>591398
>The world is fundamentally good

Stopped reading there.
I'll stick with Gnosticism, sorry.

>>593084
In Christianity, you get a new body for your soul, mang. Your new life would be material, also.

>>595645
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
>>596989
Too bad Plotinus tore Gnosticism a new asshole. Enjoy remaining a redditor.

>>596989
literally the /r9k/ of spirituality

File: dawkins.jpg (63KB, 948x1414px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 948x1414px

>>588110

I'm sorry.

I just don't see how this is beautiful compared to the wonder of Natural Selection.

>world fundamentally evil
>world fundamentally good
Why you gotta be like that?

For all those who want to learn about Plotinus, without relying on /his/ posts: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/

>>597051
>he thinks Neoplatonists are trying to say the universe is sunshine and rainbows, and not that the good of this universe is only a pale reflection of the perfect goodness of its source

The material isn't fundamentally anything. It just is.

>>591042
>>588215

Why not Proclus's elements of theology?

>>588110
For people like the OP who want good quality books (albiet with old translations) here is a fantastic site

http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/

>>588110
he was a good bloke

>>597003
>your new life would be material
I wasn't under the impression that heaven was a material paradise, more a spiritual one.

Either way, it is irrelevant and not the point. Neoplatonism doesn't breathe the same fear and demonization into the material world that Christianity does, merely states it can be transcended or that a return to the One is possible.

...And its pretty clear where Christianity/Gnosticism borrowed their philosophical ideas about the afterlife, even with alterations like the above-mentioned in mind.

>>597500
>And its pretty clear where Christianity/Gnosticism borrowed their philosophical ideas about the afterlife, even with alterations like the above-mentioned in min

Platoism is pretty much inseparable from Christianity. It arguably had more influence on the religion than Judaism.

>>593084
>>597003
>>597500
The Christian "afterlife" is generally conceived of as happening in two "stages".

The first is immediately after death, and is taken as one's soul leaving one's body and ascending to a "physical" reality [in the sense of possessing shape, form, and time] in the heavens.

The second is the resurrection of the dead, whereby all dead persons are resurrected into the same bodies they had in life, to live upon the earth as beings who are both entirely material and entirely spiritual.

This shit's in the Nicene Creed even, you really have no excuse whatsoever for thinking the Christian afterlife is platonic in any way, shape, or form.

>I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Platonic afterlife is a realm of spirit and truth where a being engages in divine contemplation.

The Christian afterlife is a future state that combines a purified material existence with divine contemplation as well.

"Touch me and see! A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you can see that I have!"

>>597509
>Platoism is pretty much inseparable from Christianity. It arguably had more influence on the religion than Judaism.
I would say all three Abrahamic faiths, though I take your point. For these monotheistic faiths, closer a belief originated to the times of Plato, the more influence it had.

>>597535
>This shit's in the Nicene Creed even, you really have no excuse whatsoever for thinking the Christian afterlife is platonic in any way, shape, or form.
I think you missed the point, and no surprise there, this wasn't meant to be an opportunity to evangelize.

The original point was that Plato's philosophies were a bad influence, all because they involved transcending the material, and this was said by someone who is a Christian. lel

Both promote it for different reasons, and yes, the Christian version itself definitely was influenced by the Academy of Plato.

>>597562
I'm an atheist, I just take a scholarly interest in Christian traditions. I find it to be a very common error that people think the Christian religion is against the material, or involves 'transcending' the material, or is, well, Platonic in a major sense.

When the reality is, that Plato's influence was if anything a corruption on the actual teachings of the creeds.

>>597583
See the second response in >>592990
Its also in no way controversial to understand Christianity as seeing our physical world as inherently evil and something to avoid, leave, or be saved from.

Who after all is the 'Lord of this world' referring to?

>>597594
>Its also in no way controversial to understand Christianity as seeing our physical world as inherently evil and something to avoid, leave, or be saved from.
In the end, you aren't to avoid, leave or be "saved from" the material world. The world will be saved by Jesus and it will be a neat place.

>>597594
It is in every way controversial, and one of the largest single factors separating orthodox theology for most major sects from say, Gnosticism.

Viewing the world as naturally good, noble, and pure, and only partially contaminated by sin, is what separates the religion from its ancient cousins, which tended to view the world and the body as bad, corrupt, and impure by its very nature.

This is not subtle difference, it colors every aspect of their theology.

In Christianity the world is good, because its Creator is good. In Gnosticism the world is bad, because its creator is bad.

In Christianity the future-state will be partially material, because that was always the plan, and moral evil, not material prisons, is the main 'evil' afflicting the cosmos. In Gnosticism the future-state will be purely spiritual, because the material world is a prison, and always has been.

>>597619
>pagans thought the world was evil or the body inherently impure

Wew lad

>>597627
Pagans? Fuck no.

Gnostics? Most of them, yes.

Platonists? Soooorta? Plato was more "The world is an inferior copy" than "the world is a prison"

>>597609
Yeah, that isn't a debatable point at all. Most atheists I have read up on or discussed this subject with would hardly see the biblical end times as actually saving our world.

Regardless, manifesting from one physical plane to another =/= NOT transcending this material world, its just a different outcome using a similar process.

>>597619
>In Christianity the world is good, because its Creator is good. In Gnosticism the world is bad, because its creator is bad

Your idea of Gnostism is a straw man version that comes from Christian sources designed to make the religion look shallow. The highest creator God in Gnosticism is Abraxas who represents both good and evil. He is a unity of opposites. Gnosticism is a highly spiritual religion that could explain both good and evil. While the understanding of evil is Christianity seems shallow, it has no way of affirming this part of life. In Gnostism God and Satan are the same figure so both elements of life are respectable. Christianity is all about trying to run away from parts of life, parts it calls 'evil' which is a form of nihilism. That's why there is the hope of escapism to a world without evil, evil is just as necessary and beautiful as good.

>>597634
>Platonists? Soooorta? Plato was more "The world is an inferior copy" than "the world is a prison"
That doesn't prove the world itself is inherently or purely evil, its up to interpretation and you clearly latch on to the kind that connects or validates your viewpoint on the matter. Confirmation bias, in short.

I would more interpret it as the material world being a contrast, or amoral, though that is just me.

Is Neoplatonism compatible with Abrahamic religions?

File: 1437942440123.jpg (55KB, 1792x1008px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1792x1008px

>>593116#
>But I'd express doubt that there is any work so fundamentally sound that just reading it at all would convince me of its internal validity; if there were such a work, there would surely be no dissent after such a long time.


this idea of a life changing book is the fantasy of any rationalist, which shows how much rationality is sterile: the natural (written) language does not yields knowledge and is rubbish at communication; the more empirical you are, the better and then there is a point where you discursive thoughts stop. at best, a book solidifies what you know but cannot put into words, but a book never change anybody.

>>588110
>>blew Gnosticism the fuck out
Genuinely curious, I thought Gnosticism had a lot of influence from Neoplatonism. Care to elaborate?

>>597680
If by "Abrahamic religions" you mean "everything that has had been derived from them, including the various heresies," then essentially yes, but from a more strict, orthodox interpretation Neoplatonism is largely incompatible.

>>598162
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Plotinus_and_the_Gnostics

>>597022
>>597036
>I have no arguments, only buzzwords

What would a Neoplatonist think of the Christian claim of God being love.

>>588110
Sounds completely retarded

>>592968
That's not cute Constantine

File: aristotle.jpg (50KB, 580x215px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 580x215px

>the year of our Philosopher 2400.
>still not accepting Aristotelian metaphysics

>>598869
Neoplatonists thought Yahweh was one of many gods below the demiurge, on the rank of Jupiter/Mars/Pluto.

So they'd probably skip the question all together and ask why you're worshiping a minor foreign deity who tortures you for eternity if you don't perform genital mutilation. The worst the other gods would do is fuck with you in this life.

>>598824
>the universe is evil at its core
>this rock is literally concentrated Satan-stuff don't ya know lmao
>being a grown ass man and believing this

I, too, get my worldview from anime

>>598824
>I have no arguments
>only meme pyramids