/lit/ - Literature

>>16410156
>why do all of the Neoplatonists disagree with eachother?
they don't, and even then we don't hold any one man (except Plato, but who has to be interpreted) to be correct in everything he says.
That all the 'philosophers' disagree is ancient christian midwit propaganda.
Proclus system is a systematization, it goes without saying that such extreme specificality brings with it some problems when put under extreme scrutiny, even if Damascius agrees with everything Proclus says he adds necessary qualities, buts and ifs, to the terms that show that what Proclus established in the Elements of Theology (his first work which he wrote at like age 25) can't be used as dogma but introduction to thinking. Eveything Damascius postulates can be derived from Proclus, the latter was just not as willing to throw an eye into the abyss; to hand-feed you: Proclus like Aristotle sacrificed higher truth to perfectly number the orders of the spheres [Being], while the others sacrificed clarity and some sanity to reach beyond the spinning wheel.
Other Platonists like Ammonius was a teacher and what we have from him are the works of his students writing down his lectures, which were obviously simplified, but there are echoes in his works of even 'higher philosophy'. The Athens-Alexandria split is a bit overblown, just as the differences between the philosophers are overblown by modern academicians who abhor paradox (like Aristotle) "everything must be logical". Olympiodorus talks about building defensive walls when speaking too openly would only get you killed for nothing (he was practically the last public non-christian), this is likely reflected in his works.