/lit/ - Literature

>>16521400
the true continuation of the Hermopolitan, Heliopolitan, Memphite, and Theban, theogonic tradition (that do not have any conflicting contradictions).

>>16518656
>>16518648
§5.6.3. But if they will say that nothing prevents that which is self-
identical from being many, there will be one substrate for these. For it is
not able to be many if there does not exist a one from which the many are
derived or which is constituted of the many or, generally, a one which is
counted first among all the rest, which we must grasp alone in itself. But 5
if this one is to exist at the same time as the rest, and we must take it
together with them, though it is nevertheless different from them, we
must let it go with the others, and seek that which underlies them, no
longer being with the others, but itself by itself. For if it were among the
others, it would be the same as the One, but it would not be this. 10
It should, however, be isolated if it is also going to be seen among the
others; that is, unless someone were to say of it that its being consists in
having its real existence along with the others. It will not, therefore, be
simple; but neither will it be something composed of many parts, for
that which is not able to be simple will have no real existence, and that
which is composed of many parts will not exist either, since that which is 15
simple will not exist. For if no simple individual can have real existence,
since there is no one simple that has real existence by itself, then neither
can a composite made out of many of them exist, since none of them can
have real existence of their own, or make itself available to exist in
conjunction with something else, since it does not exist at all. How
could that which is composed of many come to be put together from 20
things that do not exist – not from that which is not a particular existent
but from that which is absolutely non-existent?
If, therefore, there is some many, there must be a one prior to the
many. If, then, there is a multiplicity in thinking, there must be no
thinking in that which is not a multiplicity. But this was what is first. 25
Thinking and intellect, therefore, will be in the things that are posterior.

>>16176647
Haven't read Proclus' Essays on the Republic, but in there's probably your answer.
>>16176647
>How is this not Monism?
Real Difference. The Ineffable One is beyond Sameness and Difference, Rest and Motion, Beyond beyondness, transcending transcendence.

>>16176733
I've never seen you say anything beyond ad hominems and empty contentless oneliners repeating yourself, you're so unread that you couldn't even recognize the style of the post in OP as in fact not being from any of the Neoplatonists.

SOCRATES: It is a gift of the gods to men, or so it seems to me, hurled down from heaven by some Prometheus along with a most dazzling fire. And the people of old, superior to us and living in closer proximity to the gods, have bequeathed us this tale, that whatever is said to be consists of One and Many, having in its nature Limit and Unlimitedness. Since this is the structure of things, we have to assume that there is in each case always one form for every one of them, and we must search for it, as we will indeed find it there. And once we have grasped it, we must look for TWO, as the case would have it, or if not, for THREE or some other number. And we must treat every one of those further UNITIES in the same way, until it is not only established of the ORIGINAL UNIT that IT [SINGULAR] is ONE, MANY and UNLIMITED, but also how many kinds it is. For we must NOT grant the form of the Unlimited to the Plurality before we know the exact number of every plurality that lies between the unlimited and the one. Only then is it permitted to release each kind of unity into the unlimited and let it go. The gods, as I said, have left us this legacy of how to inquire and learn and teach one another. But nowadays the clever ones among us make a one, haphazardly, and a many, faster or slower than they should; they go straight from the one to the unlimited and omit the intermediates. It is these, however, that make all the difference as to whether we are engaged with each other in dialectical or only in eristic discourse.

Can't get any more direct than this.

>>15918895
>seething about substance/existence monists and buddhists (not necessarily the buddhist scriptures just buddhists)
=/=
>seething about Hindu philosophy
Bhedabheda is the correct and blessed view.
I'd rather join some tantric "guru" than shamkara,
PRAISE RUDRA
BROMIUS
THE GREAT HONK HONKER

>>15814727
>see. you can't be taken as a serious person when you reject the NT and claim shit like "dionysius, osiris and odin incarnated"
>The Logos of God says:
>>All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them
>>But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.
>these are as clear as they can be and you come with osiris, odin, dionysius bullshit
>>15814023
read the picture
it dates to way before moses or "abraham", around 200 BC

the TL;DR is a hymn to the deceased that they are Shu (atum-ra, Zeus), they are his body together as One greater than all the Gods.
Paralleling Christ's talk about 'one in him' as 'he is one with the father', except 2000 years earlier.
Orphic hymns mentioned as early as 500BC, in which we find the series of the Gods, Phanes, Zeus, Dionysus all being One yet distinct.
In Assyrian mythology there's also the concept of the Singular God and all the gods.
"The Book One God or Many?: Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World" explores all of this, and even this is now slightly outdated after 20 years.
Eliade didn't know any of all this, hieroglyphs hadn't even been fully translated correctly during his time, and even if they were there was not really any scientific consensus of what they mean, three translations of the same can all "contradict" each other. The Egyptologists Hornung, J P Allen, and Assmann all disgree on the correct interpretations and are all seen as preeminent Egyptologists.
Nor could the ancients read hieroglyphic so it was impossible for them to misconstrue them, the shocking parallels that we've found are less than 50 years old.

>>15759013
>why did they all die out?
>die out
https://www.academia.edu/17141871/Harran_Last_Refuge_of_Classical_Paganism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scotus_Eriugena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
and these three being mostly schisms from true platonism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
All the rites and practices of all the groups and methods above came from Hermeticism/Platonism which had their descent from Egyptian and Chaldean Religion. Just as Abraham and Moses based their priesthood on them.
While they remained most open about it in the Muslim world (like Averroes and Al-Farabi most of all), it is our theories you use.
Plato didn't began a cult but the whole world's education system, and proper thinking itself, every lover of wisdom is a disciple of Plato.
You would say that the religions of today are living bodies wearing the dead shell of Platonism. But it is the reverse, you are dead bones only alive through the flesh and blood of Platonism.

>The dilemma posed for the antirepresentationalist is stark: either one has to make do with the examination of the representations, in which case it is within natural science that this suitably occurs, or one has to claim that it is what the representations are representations of that should be in focus. But to insist on the latter alternative is to face the inevitable aporia that the putative objects of representation are only accessible via representations. The Platonist’s only escape from this dilemma is to deny that knowledge is or is primarily representational. This claim, as we have seen, must be embedded within a larger, antimaterialistic metaphysical framework.
If Richard Rorty and I are right in maintaining that Platonism is philosophy, and if I am also right that Christianity has coopted Platonism to a large extent, then it is hardly surprising that much of what passes for philosophy today is actually work on the theoretical foundations of the natural sciences, in particular the natural sciences that have human beings as their subject matter. From this perspective, it is also hardly surprising to fi nd exiguous the output of work on moral normativity that is not rooted in biology and psychology. Perhaps the simplest way to put the Platonic point here is that ethics without metaphysics may aim for but can never attain universality. Bereft of metaphysics, ethics is bound to be as parochial as those who pursue it. And the only metaphysics that will do, of course, has as its subject matter the intelligible world at the apex of which is the Idea of the Good.

>>15658162
>unity of opposites
Egyptians discovered this in 3000+BC and the Pythagoreans/Platonists carried it onwards.