/lit/ - Literature

>>18363969
This is what I thought.
>>18364478
It seems to me that the meaning or purpose of life is to do what it does. Its just that, given the awareness of having ascended out of the cave, we are capable of realising that the sophian life is the best life producing the greatest eudaimonia and preparing the soul for reintegration with eternity in the most thorough fashion. Ultimately The One's (Mind &/ Soul's) purpose(s) are its own, not necessarily beyond our ability to contemplate but perhaps beyond our ability to know concretely as I conceive it- He knows best who knows he knows not much after all. I was applying to it last night Campbell's idea of the monomyth. The One emanates Mind that emanates Soul for the purpose of an infinitely spiraling ascent and return (descent?) through all the possible stages of manifestation. Each individual soul's perspective throughout each of its transmigrations (and all the possibilities within an individuality's "range of being"- hard concept to communicate, see pic related, maybe parallel universes could be another way of communicating what I mean-) being another instantiation of the total higher Soul's activity of contemplation of the Divine Mind (which is the "container" and activating principle of Soul's emanation and "journeying"). Don't take this for much though. I'm not that well read into Platonism yet.
>>18364585
>is the afterlife Plato posits one where you are every life that ever was/will be, which implies there is only one soul and no individual souls?
The individuality of each soul is what constituents the unity of Soul. An analogue that comes to mind for me is coral. Ive heard that each point of it has an individual experience but the life of the organism pertains to the entire being taken as a singularity. Maybe it could also be thought of as 'each instant constituents total Time. I suppose its a matter of part and whole. Each individual soul is a part that constitutes the whole as Soul, that collective (super(?)) Soul (and please correct me if I'm wrong here- I'm just riffing) emanates individual souls like rays from the sun that are capable during life of contemplating return (reintegration- not annihilation, I look at it more like relinquishing-) to the Soul-Mind-One which will happen more or less after birth depending on ones degree of preparation during life. The relinquishing part is certainly interesting to contemplate. What this anon says: >>18365184
>there's no subservience of will in soul.
I think makes sense. No longer are we confined by individuality and individual wills but are harmonised with supreme, Divine will, of which each:
>true 'sage' is the crown (Keter lol) of Soul; quantity has no meaning here.
But quality may do. Hence the importance of the idea of heros becoming Divine in hellenic culture and "becoming a God".
All this could just be more confusing and I could be way of the mark but its fun the speculate on nonetheless. Please to correct me if I'm off the mark.

>>13866404
Explain the difference?


>>13866387
Yes. Why?

>vertigo

That people find anything new in hegel's sophistry is baffling to me. Its like people never have thought before. Its literally the most basic shit. We are the spirit of the world connecting with itself. S'just fucken patheism. To a hindu stating that is like saying fish swim in water and birds fly in the sky. >consciousnesses via for dominance, do fucking shit. Observe a group of children, -or adults, they seem to be the same thing just one is more pretensious and condescending than the other-, and you'll see the master slave dialect playout.

The only thing that gives me vertigo is imaging the abyss of human ignorance where a sophist like Hegel can have as much influence as he did.

I don't think it does. All actions are the consequence of prior conditions, which are inescapable.