/lit/ - Literature

>>18307959
>>18307954
very cool thank you
>>18307958
She unexpectedly was really pythagorean in her musical works and the accounts of her personal revelations make more sense after grasping Christian Neoplatinism imo
>>18307993
>Are you saying that the Trinitarian argument is so complex that it cant be explained to a layman
generally speaking yes but I'd definitely hold that if you can understand Proclus you can grasp trinitarianism.
>>18307970
First of all, we know the trinity through faith first and foremost so everything Proclus says about the One generally applies to the homoousias [single and absolutely simple divine essence] of the Godhead shared between the three persons.
One ousia, 3 hypostases.
Propositions 4 and 5 concern the One Godhead in this manner.
We know of the ousia rationally and the three hypostases which are self-same with the ousia but distinct from each other through faith.
But by being of the same substance of the Godhead we know that they are not "unified" multiplicies in themselves.
The Godhead is unconditioned and so not a being-as-such but is beyond-being. Unification is due unto beings-as-such as they are given to intellect directly [the same is for thought as is for being - being is to be known, and thus to be "this" or "that" i.e. determinate and thus finite], but the ousia shared between the three persons is infinite/unconditioned.
Thus the persons of the trinity are not "things united" or "of unities".
Every determinate multitude however, is exactly how Proclus describes it in prop 6.
Dionysius seems to identify the henads with the highest chorus of angels from memory.
Regardless of all that I've said, it is important to note that the trinity is known first and foremost from 'de fide'. From faith. It's existence, origin/procession, relations, number and manner of signification are taken on faith prior to any rational excursion.
The goal then is never to deductively prove the existence of the trinity but to show at a baseline level that there is no necessity for it to conflict with reason.
>>18308034
>Aquinas worked from pure reason
but he didn't - his article on the nature of the knowledge of the trinity starts with "It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason."
pic related.