/lit/ - Literature

>>20934789
From another post based on an understanding of Klein that I found helpful (which also explains what the confused followers of Plato were doing with the "generation of numbers" and what Aristotle may have misunderstood as pointed out here: >>20935223):
>The philosophical use was mainly derived from the Pythagoreans who used it to talk about how multiple units of a set of concrete entities "shared in" their common property (number).
>This is why Aristotle criticizes them for being relatively shallow and superficial in describing which things are structured by (i.e. participate, share in) which numbers. Because they'd just find arbitrary numberings and harmonies everywhere and say all those things are alike in deriving from from twoness. But they did not hypostatize "number" in our sense, as an Arabic numeral set up as an "idea" over and against concrete multiplicities. All numbers were for them concrete multiples of things. They didn't have hypostatic numeral-ideas, we do only as a function of later developments.
>All this is in Klein's Greek Mathematical Thought. If you want to understand the Platonic participation concept you need to understand the Greek "natural" ontology he describes in Husserlian phenomenological terms.
I will be reading Klein later for full understanding. But from a glance, it seems that Klein (and Aristotle, and the Pythagoreans) misunderstood Plato's fixation on "number." Specifically, they do not understand the form of the number "one", the unit, its metaphysical relation to the One and the Indeterminate Dyad, and how/why Plato sees it as essential through mathematical analogy. After all, how can "oneness" not be everywhere? How can "oneness" that enables "multiplicity" without permanent, infinite fragmentation be a bad thing? If Plato is the philosopher of unity, then Aristotle is the philosopher of fragmentation, and it's no wonder why Deleuze enjoys calling himself an Aristotelian.

I just ignore any atheist who hasn't read the Hermetic Corpus because they're just talking out their ass about shit that goes over their head.

>>20310692
What is your opinion on pic-rel?

>>20157577
Hegel was very well read on and into the science of his day, but also into esoterica.

Then read Hegel.
Then strive to achieve Absolute Knowing, the place where love of wisdom becomes wisdom.

Has anyone read this? How well does it make the argument that Hegel was a hermetic?