/lit/ - Literature

>>18202392
ATHENIAN: Well then, what kind of soul may we say has gained control
of the heavens and earth and their entire cycle of movement? Is it the
rational and supremely virtuous kind, or that which has neither advantage?
Would you like our reply to run like this?
CLINIAS: How?
ATHENIAN: ‘If, my fine fellow’ (we should say) ‘the whole course and
movement of the heavens and all that is in them reflect the motion and
revolution and calculation of reason, and operate in a corresponding fash-
ion, then clearly we have to admit that it is the best kind of soul that cares
for the entire universe and directs it along the best path.’
CLINIAS: True.
ATHENIAN: ‘If however these things move in an unbalanced and dis-
organized way, we must say the evil kind of soul is in charge of them.’
CLINIAS: That too is true.
ATHENIAN: ‘So what is the nature of rational motion?’ Now this, my
friends, is a question to which it is difficult to give an answer that will
make sense, so you’re justified here in calling me in to help with your reply.
CLINIAS: Good.
ATHENIAN: Still, in answering this question we mustn’t assume that
mortal eyes will ever be able to look upon reason and get to know it
adequately: let’s not produce darkness at noon, so to speak, by looking at
the sun direct. We can save our sight by looking at an image of the object
we’re asking about.
CLINIAS: How do you mean?
ATHENIAN: What about selecting from our list of ten motions the one
which reason resembles, and taking that as our image? I’ll join you in
recalling it, and then we’ll give a joint answer to the question.
CLINIAS: Yes, that’s probably your best method of explanation.
ATHENIAN: Do we still remember at any rate this from the list of points
we made earlier, that all things are either in motion or at rest?
CLINIAS: Yes, we do.
ATHENIAN: And some of those in motion move in a single location, others
898 in a succession of locations?
CLINIAS: That is so.
ATHENIAN: Of these two motions, that taking place in a single location
necessarily implies continuous revolution round a central point, just like
wheels being turned on a lathe; and this kind of motion bears the closest
possible affinity and likeness to the cyclical movement of reason.
CLINIAS: What do you mean?

>>15818405
>guénon
oh geez oh no
>I depart from here.
good
>This is like three times the number of main platonists.
The superior preservation of text due your fathers destroying everything beautiful isn't something I'd be proud about.
I mentioned Proto-mithraic because it's the central theme of mithraism, it was a a anticipation of the common insult that Mithraism is something post-christian.
But yes is present in the oldest legend of Gilgamesh, and it is found in the worship of Serapis (Osiris Apis), but all of this to me only proves historic legitimacy, unlike christianity which only has a small over-hyped selection of truths.

>>15653538
>>15653614
>>15653713
To tell what it really is would be a matter for utterly superhuman and long discourse, but it is within human power to describe it briefly in a figure; let us therefore speak in that way. We will liken the soul to the composite nature of a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the horses and charioteers of the gods are all good and [246b] of good descent, but those of other races are mixed; and first the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is noble and of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome. Now we must try to tell why a living being is called mortal or immortal. Soul, considered collectively, has the care of all that which is soulless, and it traverses the whole heaven, appearing sometimes in one form and sometimes in another; now when it is perfect [246c] and fully winged, it mounts upward and governs the whole world; but the soul which has lost its wings is borne along until it gets hold of something solid, when it settles down, taking upon itself an earthly body, which seems to be self-moving, because of the power of the soul within it; and the whole, compounded of soul and body, is called a living being, and is further designated as mortal. It is not immortal by any reasonable supposition, but we, though we have never seen [246d] or rightly conceived a god, imagine an immortal being which has both a soul and a body which are united for all time. Let that, however, and our words concerning it, be as is pleasing to God; we will now consider the reason why the soul loses its wings. It is something like this. The natural function of the wing is to soar upwards and carry that which is heavy up to the place where dwells the race of the gods. More than any other thing that pertains to the body [246e] it partakes of the nature of the divine. But the divine is beauty, wisdom, goodness, and all such qualities; by these then the wings of the soul are nourished and grow, but by the opposite qualities, such as vileness and evil, they are wasted away and destroyed. Now the great leader in heaven, Zeus, driving a winged chariot, goes first, arranging all things and caring for all things.

>>15368602
think again
Proclus reports:
>The divine Iamblichus is quite correct, therefore, in attacking those who hold this opinion [that there is something of the soul which does not fall], for what element in us is it that sins when the unreasoning principle in us is stirred, and we chase after a lawless notion? Is it not our free will (prohairesis)? And how would it not be this? For it is by reason of this that we differ from those beings that follow impressions without reflection. If the free will sins, then how would the soul remain sinless? . . . And what is the Charioteer of the soul? Is it not the noblest, and, one might say, consummate part of us? And how can we avoid this conclusion, if indeed this is what directs our whole being and with its own head views the supracelestial sphere and is assimilated to the "great leader" of the gods, who "drives a winged chariot" and "journeys through the heaven as a first" charioteer? And if the charioteer is the highest element in us, and he, as is said in the Phaedrus, sometimes is carried up aloft and raises "his head into the region outside," while at other times he descends and (fills his pair) with lameness and moulting, it plainly follows that the highest element in us experiences different states at different times.
The agent of the soul's descent was prohairesis, its "free will," "choice," or "disposition." In his letter on fate Iamblichus again used this term to account for different conditions in human life:
>"Why, you ask, are goods undeservedly distributed? Rather, to begin with, is it not impious even to ask this? For the goods of life do not depend on anything else but on man himself and on man's choice (hairesis), and the most important goods are determined by free-will (prohairesis) alone."

>>14947348
yes, exactly, and Catholic/Orthodox dogma taken to its logical extremes makes their God evil. Therefore the bible and your church is not wholly divinely inspired. Because God is Good.

Phaedrus #1
Sophist-Statesman (as one)
Phaedo
Parmenides (through Proclus' Commentary of it)
Theaetetus

>Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher; “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” 3 What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the sun? 4 One generation goes, and another generation comes; but the earth remains forever. 5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to its place where it rises. 6 The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. It turns around continually as it goes, and the wind returns again to its courses. 7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again. 8 All things are full of weariness beyond uttering. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10 Is there a thing of which it may be said, “Behold,[a] this is new?” It has been long ago, in the ages which were before us. 11 There is no memory of the former; neither shall there be any memory of the latter that are to come, among those that shall come after.