/lit/ - Literature

>slightly modifies what the Gnostics already believed

from The Secret Book of John:

'The One is the invisible spirit. We should not think of it as a god or like a god. For it is greater than a god, because it has nothing over it and no lord above it. It does not exist within anything inferior to it, since everything exists within it alone. It is eternal, since it does not need anything. For it is absolutely complete. It has never lacked anything in order to be completed by it. Rather, it is always absolutely complete in light. The One is

illimitable, since there is nothing before it to limit it,
unfathomable, since there is nothing before it to fathom it,
immeasurable, since there was nothing before it to measure it,
invisible, since nothing has seen it,
eternal, since it exists eternally,
unutterable, since nothing could comprehend it to utter it,
unnamable, since there is nothing before it to give it a name.

The One is the immeasurable light, pure, holy, immaculate. The One is unutterable and is perfect in incorruptibility. Not that it is part of perfection or blessedness or divinity: it is much greater.

The One is not corporeal and is not incorporeal.

The One is not large and is not small.

It is impossible to say,

“How much is it?
What kind is it?”

For no one can understand it.'

Plotinus has captured my soul litbros. I have a fairly strong background in Plato and Aristotle but have only recently encountered Plotinus. I have only read on beauty by him but I have read it countless time now. I am intrigued by gnostic dualism of form: good, beautiful, true and prime matter: evil, ugly, unreal. This is an area of personal contention in my life, it feels wrong to participate in the base debauchery we see everyday in modern civilization, yet a complete rejection of the external for the internal beauty of the soul may be too much for me. I do not know if that is what is is the best. I don't know if becoming a monk is the right thing to do for me or for anyone. The weight Plotinus puts on mystical experience of the Good and the Beautiful is also interesting. It seems like he believes experience of the the Good and Beautiful is required before we can actually rationally examine them. He almost assumes their self evident existence. What Ennead do I read next by him?

It is impossbile to talk about bodily beauty if one, like one born blind, has never seen and known bodily beauty. In the same way, it is impossible to talk about the "luster" of right living and of learning and of the life if one has never cared for such things, never beheld "the face of justice" and temperance and seen it to be "beyond the beauty of evening or morning star." Seeing of this sort is done only with the eye of the soul. And, seeing thus, one undergoes a joy, a wonder, and a distress more deep than any other because one touches truth.

Christianity was a mistake.

Why did western thought move away from Neoplatonism? I'm trying to understand where it all went wrong and I want to know why the Neoplatonism was largely abandoned. Can any anons who are familiar with all the intellectual history and back and forth give me a quick run-down? I'm aware that for much of the middle ages large segments of Europe were unaware of Plato (and by extension I guess Plointus). Is it because of it being mostly forgotten and the remainder being absorbed in Christianity? There seems to have been a brief revival with German Idealism but that had little lasting effect. Are there any famous or influential western thinkers who critiqued Neoplatonism heavily and if so what were their criticisms?

What the FUCK was his problem?

I'm guessing this is the 1 dusty Greek thread in the corner of /lit/. Can anybody shed light on the value of Plotinus and his relationship to Plato?

>>12907041

I mean trudging through Catholicism is somewhat heroic, but categorically silly since you can simply renounce Catholicism.

>Thus he told how, at the age of right, when he was already going to school, he still clung about his nurse and loved to bare her breasts and take suck: one day he was told he was a 'perverted imp', and so was shamed out of the trick
Fucking based

Plotinus. Where start? Chart? Thnx. Have read Plato thnx.

Thnx.
Also general /plotin/us thread.

He was never refuted.

>>11100369
I agree with this post >>11086363 some anon made in the last thread. There are good aspects of it and Neoplatonism is remarkably similar to Advaita; but ultimately the best aspects of it were fragmented, not widely taught and passed out of history instead of being passed down to the present day; the best thing about what happened to it was that some of it was marginally absorbed into Christianity and Islam. If it had properly been developed, safeguarded and passed down then it might had some real potential but now it's just another chapter in history. Maybe it could be revived in it's home but Eastern Orthodox seems pretty deeply engrained in Greek culture at this point.