/lit/ - Literature

>>16372270
origenist, so he's not personally condemned but some of his beliefs; but don't ask me, I'm not a christian

>>15715125
And if anyone says Plato isn't ISTP: consider his name and why he has it, and also that half the dialogues are about ethics and matters of practice. Sure, Socrates was an even bigger ESTP; but there's no difference, or way to know if there is, between which statements are Plato's thoughts and which were Socrates'.

>>14949726
The issue is about eternal hell.
Emanation isn't ex nihilo.
And your question makes no sense, nor does it have any relevance to the thread.

In a way everything is the Good, in an ineffable way, as much as the One-Being which is everything is the Good (since it is beyond distinction), but this is as a whole. Evil only exists from a perspective of particularity: if Matter viewed in itself then it is pure emptiness, non-being—absolute potential being with zero actuality, just like the Indefinite Dyad, in-fact it is the Dyad but removed from the Limited Henad by being "outside" the One-Being; or perhaps matter even is the same as the the Indefinite "beforeness" of the Epistrophe of Nous that eternally forms the One-Being (God, the Harmony of the Unlimited and the Limited). But matter is only "good" when seen for what it is: that being the receptacle of all form, it is "evil" when Soul confuses the image with the archetype/forn that inheres in matter making a Body, bodies are Icons and should focus the mind to true reality (god) not draw all our attention to the body itself and become idols (if you're orthodox this should be perfectly understandable), the whole world and everything in is an Icon, and in being an Icon it fulfills its telos and thus it is the Good.
Then you might respond with saying that then everything is equally Good, but this ignores that the Good is "everything" and more than everything (panentheism), since he is also the true goal of everything. Thus he isn't everything as much as privation can be semantically argued to be "something", that if he is everything and more then he should also be every possible distinction that you can't imagine, but a shadow isn't truly something; just as [my skin and Jupiter] tho now being a category isn't a real thing, there's no Idea of this in heaven, shadows and this random category are products of human doxa and not real participations of the Ideas.

Anaxagoras
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Cicero
Seneca
Hypatia
Boethius
Isidore and Damascius
All the last Platonists: Damascius (again), Simplicius, & Co.
Also Olympiodorus had to exile himself to not suffer the faith of the Athenian Platonists and to preserve the bare-bones of pure philosophy in Byzantium.
>Had the writing of Plato not checked my impulse, I would have loosened by now the grievous, baneful bond of life.

>>14610404
For these are the labor pains [we undergo], and in this way they gain purification with respect to the absolute One and the truly unique cause of all things. Assuredly the One in us, intuited in the way that it is because it is closer
to us and more familiar, and altogether inferior to that [One], is that much more available for such an intuition. But from the One so qualified, however it has been qualified, the ascent to the absolute One is not difficult: even if we fail in every way to attain that, still, we can have some intuition of that which is before all things by using the absolute One in us as a vehicle. So the One is in this way both ineffable and communicable; but let perfect silence prevail concerning that other principle, and even prior to this, let there be the perfect unknowing that disdains all knowledge.

>>14405205
>“It is the duty of us, the founders, then,” said I, “to compel the best natures to attain the knowledge which we pronounced the greatest, and to win to the vision of the good, to scale that ascent, and when they have reached the heights and taken an adequate view, we must not allow what is now permitted.”
“What is that?”
>“That they should linger there,” I said, “and refuse to go down again among those bondsmen and share their labors and honors, whether they are of less or of greater worth.”
“Do you mean to say that we must do them this wrong, and compel them to live an inferior life when the better is in their power?”
>“You have again forgotten, my friend,” said I, “that the law is not concerned with the special happiness of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them for the binding together of the commonwealth.”
“True,” he said, “I did forget it.”
>“Observe, then, Glaucon,” said I, “that we shall not be wronging, either, the philosophers who arise among us, but that we can justify our action when we constrain them to take charge of the other citizens and be their guardians.

and you dare slander him