/lit/ - Literature

The fact that the "Third Man" argument has been repeated throughout history as if it were in any way effective or profound unironically makes me believe most people who are into philosophy are actual NPCs.

Like the first argument as it's given in Parmenides is probably just a joke (Parmenides asks "Will there not appear some one *large* thing by which all these appear to be large ?", to which the answer is no), and Aristotle's version is pretty much along those lines too.

The "TMA" that Proclus deals with in his commentaries is somewhat "nearer the mark" in terms of posing a real problem on a wrong understanding of platonic realism, but it is not the argument given by detractors anyways, though ironically it is basically the "TMA 2" given in Parmenides (so that we can say that Plato actually understood what a "real-er" objection could be, but nevertheless was unphased by it)

I guess if you're analytically minded like Proclus then yeah you can make that division between the participated and unparticipated term, but you still have to remember that it's little more than a semantic crutch for immediate use in debating non-platonists and that Plotinus' approach of simply pointing out that the sensible world *can be nothing but* the differentiated and discursive apprehension/appearance of true being, and not even acknowledging the midwits who think there is some sort of problem or contradiction with this.

pretty much the same goes for the "one over many" bullshit objections

tl;dr
>ideas have no "features in common" with instances
>the "otherness" of ideas from instances in not the kind otherness instances have between themselves
>there is no contradiction between transcendence and immanence
>ideas cannot not be ontologically prior to instances for reason of intelligibility, potentiality, and finality
k good talk

So obviously all of Neoplatonism’s claims to describing an objective world have been basically debunked in the Post Kantian scientific world, and are only an historical curiosity.

But I’ve had the thought for a while, that the Neoplatonic system as the most advanced form of classical philosophy is a totally accurate experience of our psychological experience. By which I don’t mean it is a psychology, because psychology as a science integrates also the subconscious, but that it accurately describes what is experienced by transcendental consciousness. That is, the One may not be an objective metaphysical entity, but it is still something that we can directly experience in our minds. And there may not actually be one cause of everything, but we still perceive a source of our being. Perhaps our “soul”, our conscious thinking faculty, really does “circle around” a realm of pure Intellect, although this realm may be entirely in our mind, and the One describes some kind if psychological unity, like the One and Henosis are the same. Since Neoplatonism is so rigorous and expounded upon, it would be the best description of this psychology. Anyone ever thought of this before?

>>20101425
If you really want to read aesthetics, you have to understand that aesthetics basically starts with Plato. Platonic aesthetics is very interesting because, unlike modern aesthetics, Plato draws a clear distinction between aesthetics and the philosophy of art, as he completely valorizes beauty as good and art (specifically poetry) as evil (arguable only in the context of education but the connotation of mimesis with lying stuck outside of Plato's own considerations). It's also really important how Aristotle reversed this by valorizing poetry and tragedy, sortof incorporating the philosophy of art with general aesthetics, which is a connection that will continually become stronger as the study continues on into the flourishing of aesthetics in the 18th century and beyond (particularly in Germany). Generally, aestheticians fall into a Platonic line in which beauty (and usually art) takes on a metaphysical significance or an Aristotelian line in which both art and beauty are viewed as being emotionally important. With that said, here are the texts that I've found most engaging from a multitude of different viewpoints:

>Plato: Republic Book X, Ion, Symposium:
Republic X and Ion could be unfairly summarized through the above description of Plato but I find that the Symposium, while not technically an aesthetic text, has immense relevance for aesthetics due to the intimate connection between beauty and love. Plus, I love to analyze Aristophanes' speech and circumstances in the dialogue in the greater context of the meaning of comedy.

>Aristotle: Poetics:
Basically what I've said above, but much of literary criticism and theory is based off the Poetics (at least the theory that isn't based off of Saussure's 19th century linguistics is). I personally find Northrop Frye's revival of Aristotle's emphasis on the position of the hero relative to the reader very important.

>Plotinus: Enneads, Book I, Sixth Tractate:
For me, this is where aesthetics gets really interesting. Plotinus is, of course, working in a Platonic tradition but adds so much more through his moving past the concept of beauty as being a relation of parts to wholes into a conception of unified beauty found in the equally unified soul (another callback to the Republic). Plotinus continues to essentially define the Platonic tradition is aesthetics moving forward.

I'll just go ahead and say that there wasn't much aesthetics theory in the middle ages. A lot of people will disagree with me here, and there certainly wasn't none, but aesthetics as a mode of inquiry will always be attached to the Greek world and the astounding Greek capacity for image-creation, tragedy, performance, and personification.

where do intelligent people actually go to talk about literature? I have been stuck on 4chan and not able to find any other part of the internet but the entire image board and forumesque format itself is not at all conducive to actual discussion. The reddit format is even worse and the only people who use reddit are passing hobbyists. the /lit/ discord server is horrible even though the format is theoretically better. How the fuck do you even find other parts of the internet anymore? How do other people find them? I know these places where people are discussing books and ideas without me must exist.

it seems like everyone either assumes the soul exists or that it doesn't and none explain how it fucking works either way. Ever since I started thinking that a material explanation of consciousness just being a side effect of thinking kind of makes more sense functionally than a non-material explanation it's like I can't protect my mind from nihilism and atheism. Even though I don't think the weight and meaning of consciousness is removed when it is explained materially and I feel like in a certain way it actually affirms free will since if you are your brain and your brain is controlling your decisions then you are controlling your own decisions and when I look around at the world I still think that God or something like God exists it's still like something fundamental has been removed from me

>I am ashamed to poop

Which philosophers refuted Plotinus (PBUH)?