/lit/ - Literature

>The post-structuralists thought they were destroying Platonism.
>What they failed to perceive is that deconstruction is rudimentary first-year Neoplatonic teaching.
https://philarchive.org/archive/HALOTP-2

Damascius' Problems and Solutions:
Hence, too, when we have grasped with the intellect everything that is in any way capable of being known or intuited up to the point of the One, we think (if we must attempt to express what cannot be expressed or to conceptualize that which eludes all thought) we still think it correct to posit that which does not coincide with anything and is not part of any system and indeed so transcendent that in truth it does not even exhibit the mark of transcendence. For the transcendent always transcends something and so is not entirely transcendent, because it is conditioned by a relationship with that which it transcends, and generally has a fixed place in the progression of a system. If, then, it is to subsist as truly transcendent, it must not even be postulated as transcendent. In fact, the name that most appropriately designates the transcendent does not name it correctly, since it [designates] something that is already co-coordinated within a system, so that one must at the same time deny it the name. But denial (apophasis) is itself a kind of discourse, and that about which the denial is made is the subject of the discourse, but the [Ineffable] is nothing at all, and therefore no denial can be made concerning it, since it is altogether outside the realm of language, and it is not knowable in any way at all, so that it is not even possible to deny the denial. Rather, the demonstration that reveals the [Ineffable] to us, about which we speak, consists in the complete overturning of discourse and thought. And what will turn out to be the limit of discourse, except silence that has no power to convey it, and the agreement to continue to know nothing about that which it is not permitted to enter into knowledge of, since it remains as the inaccessible?