/lit/ - Literature

look at this retard mapping his Jewish myths to philosophy, very cool anon! Now tell me where angels feature in the neoplatonic system!

>>16852304
Daemons

>>16852146
They don't, Plotinus' triad is a hierarchy, the Christian Trinity is also one but tries hard not to look like one. The Son also doesn't create anything unlike the Nous or Intelligible Demiurge, and there is no World Soul in Christian theology.

>>16852312
Daemons aren't a part of the Platonic system anon-chan, they were simply introduced by Xenocrates because Plato didn't provide any divine influencing force for you to cope with. They're literally make-believe for the masses (much like angels).

>>16852327
>They're literally make-believe for the masses (much like angels).
You don't know whether in the universe there are higher intelligences than yours or not.

>>16852333
Cope.

>>16852337
You aren't even remotely close to the One or the Nous and are arguably limited by your body to make such a bold declaration. Posting unsavoury anime waifus won't push you any closer to the first principle.

>>16852327
They're a big part of Proclus system

>>16852318
>The Son also doesn't create anything
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
?

>>16852384
This refers to God as a whole, not just to the Nous as in Neoplatonism.

They do not because they are not emanations

>>16852400
They're emanations, but the concept of 3 in 1 triad isn't stressed as much as in Christianity. The Nous and the Wolrd Soul are independent from the One and only belong to it insofar as they participate in it.

>>16852394
It's referring specifically to the hypostasis of the Logos (Word) or Son. Not the Trinity as a whole.

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

>>16852415
>and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
As I said, Neoplatonism doesn't stress this as much as Christianity.

>>16852433
His point is that there is creation through the Son, the Logos. That is why He is the Wisdom of God.

>>16852378
Yeah and proclus is dumb
>>16852365
Cope.

>>16852146
>imagine caring about what the Christian "neoplatonists" had to say when you can just study the Neoplatonists instead

>>16853056
And in Iamblichus, Olympiodorus and other platonists too, but they are mentioned all the time by Plato as well.

>getting this butthurt over fucking fantasy angels

>>16853115
Find me the references in Plato outside the Laws and references to Socrates' daemon, and show how these are to be taken seriously.

>>16853159
Haven't you read Ion, I Alcibiades, Phaedrus? Daemons are influences. Read Olympiodorus' commentary on the I Alcibiades, Hermias' commentary on Gods and Daemons in his commentary on the Phaedrus (you can find it in that Studies in Platonism series), Iamblichus' and Proclus' works. There is also a book specifically on this: ''Neoplatonic Demons and Angels''.

>>16853077
This frankly. I dont mind Christians wanting to understand the cosmos and our place in it using neoplatonic methods, but to understand those methods, just go back to the source

>>16852327
Socrates' daemon lay somewhere between his being his conscience and a divine influence (daimonion is literally "divine something"). Don't be dense with the texts anon it's pretty cringe..

>>16852327
>>16852337
>>16852304
> Animu posters are the lowest form of retard poster on the internet
Looks like myth is definitely confirmed.

>>16853304
>daimonian is literally "divine something"
Anon-chama doesn't know Greek cuz that's wrong...
>>16853266
I have read those anonymous :3 in Ion it is not a daemon but a god which inspires, and to say the daemon causes divine inspiration shows you didn't pay attention in the Apology like >>16853304, because the daemon is distinguished from the divine oracle as a voice that stops Socrates from doing some action or thinking some thought in order to protect his life, while the oracle gives commands and instructs action, and also divinely inspires as Meno says :3 also 1 Alcibiades is not written by Plato. If you're gonna cite Phaedrus, a dialogue dedicated to rhetoric and the disjunction between writing and speech, I would like you to quote the text or explain how the mythological references are not rhetorical flourishes ;3
And anonymous, how could you forget the greatest reference to daemons, the daemon love in Symposium! Ara ara anon-chan you should read more.
>>16853326
Cope.

>>16853304
>daimonian is literally "divine something"
Anon-chama doesn't know Greek cuz that's wrong...
>>16853266
I have read those anonymous :3 in Ion it is not a daemon but a god which inspires, and to say the daemon causes divine inspiration shows you didn't pay attention in the Apology like >>16853304, because the daemon is distinguished from the divine oracle as a voice that stops Socrates from doing some action or thinking some thought in order to protect his life, while the oracle gives commands and instructs action, and also divinely inspires as Meno says :3 also 1 Alcibiades is not written by Plato. If you're gonna cite Phaedrus, a dialogue dedicated to rhetoric and the disjunction between writing and speech, I would like you to quote the text or explain how the mythological references are not rhetorical flourishes ;3
And anonymous, how could you forget the greatest reference to daemons, the daemon love in Symposium! Ara ara anon-chan you should read more.
>>16853326
Cope.

>>16853326
Nah I like him he seems kinda cool

>>16853385
Do you have social media I can talk to you on

>>16852304
>>16852327
>>16852337
>>16853056
>>16853159
>>16853385
Tranny

>>16853416
Yea, and can you both fuck off forever please? Thx.

>>16853416
that depends anon, what do you wish to talk about :3
>>16853417
>>16853448
mean ;_;

>>16853385
I didn’t say daemons cause divine inspirations but that they are part of the inspiration with its specific function. That is why there are six kinds of daemons.
>alcibiades is not written by plato
This is not unanimous and there has been more opinions favouring its authencity than the opposite.

>Phaedrus
Just told you to check Hermias’ commentary on the dialogue.

>symposium
Yeah that was an obvious one, thank you for proving my point

>>16853385
Probably should have brought up symposium earlier yeah, but now that I realize you have a commitment to a tailored interpretation.
Tell me how you would translate diamonion. I can't wait for the literal extremity you'll take it too.

>>16853489
>they are part of the inspiration with its specific function. That is why there are six kinds of daemons.
[citation needed], I don't remember this in Plato...
>more opinions favouring its authencity than the opposite
now you're just insulting me! I don't care how many votes are cast in favor of one view or another. I won't be convinced by such a democratic "refutation". As Socrates says in the Gorgias
>please don't tell me to call for a vote from the people present here. If you have no better "refutations" than these to offer, do as I suggested just now: let me have my turn, and you try the kind of refutation I think is called for.
>Hermias’ commentary
so you can't even explain it yourself? Does anon-san know what he is arguing?
>thank you for proving my point
I'm afraid nothing has been proven yet :3
>>16853521
I don't know what you mean by "tailored interpretation", I go by my own interpretation :3
Daimonian is most literally "daimonic thing", and Plato's understanding of daemons is informed by the general Greek conception, for which you can read a lovely summary in Burkert's Greek Religion.

>>16853558
>Daimonian is most literally "daimonic thing", and Plato's understanding of daemons is informed by the general Greek conception, for which you can read a lovely summary in Burkert's Greek Religion.
The "greek general conception" being what I wrote, instead of just putting a literal translation, because I knew you would just to displace the word from it's cultural meaning, only to place it back in a vaguer, yet more wordy definition.

>>16853587
Now anon, to reduce the daemonic to "divine" is to muddy the waters here, the daemon was distinct in the Greek mind from the gods, which are explicitly called divine.

>>16853558
I'm gonna unzip my pants and slide my cock inside your asscrack, then pound you furiously until I'm ready to release my sticky cum inside your asspussy. You'll attain ecstasy and see by yourself the intelligible forms that govern the universe.

>>16853699
Sorry anon-kun I'm not into boys...

>>16853752
Consent wasn't an option

>>16853558
>I don't remember this in Plato
Plato never offers a systematic conception of any of his ideas in his dialogues. What was the main point, which is now settled, is that the daimons play a role in platonism since Plato himself.

>I don't care how many votes
I don't care about it too, the point is that your assertion about the dialogue being written by other person than Plato is not uncontroversial. The great number of ''votes'' vouching for its authencity leads to a more profound debate than simply dismissing the dialogue in the way you did.

>so you can't even explain it yourself
I'm not at home now, but seeing that reading books is not your habit (I recommended you four or five books on the subject) I will when I get home.

>I'm afraid nothing has been proven yet
It has and I should not waste more time.

>>16853815
Have a safe trip home! Things have NOT been settled since you haven't convinced me daimons are anything except rhetorical devices within the dialogues, like much of Plato's myths.

>>16853834
What do you mean by rhetorical devices? Whether you believe there are immaterial beings like angels doing the functions as daimons, or principles and opennesses in one's own consciousness being able to be driven by divine principles, they refer to the same thing. The mythical device in the former will always be referred to the bare rational ''reality'' of the latter.

>>16853834
Plotinus on his treatise about one's allotted daimon says that it is the choice of the soul, which contains all things in potentiality, to energise or practise a particular life. Then he proceeds to talk about the differences between the vegetative life, animal life, intellectual life...

>>16854113
The daimon is absolutely not one's conscience, and to consider it as such is to misunderstand the daimon, this passage is also just plain reaching in its bare assertion that the daimon is the angel, and trying to tell me what Plato would have thought after getting the concept of daimon wrong. Are you trying to tell me that Socrates was the only man in Athens with the phenomenon of conscience? You would also forget that your conscience leads you to do things, not only not to do things. Please don't cite retard schizos like this, I'd much prefer you cite Plato or Plotinus instead.
>>16854132
This passage though, now we're getting somewhere. One should recall not only the Myth of Er in this regard but also Heraclitus
>character is for man his daimon
This is a much better understanding of the phenomenon, and is in line with the Greek conception Plato was accustomed to and imitates.
The problem here though is that this doesn't show daimons to be any active force, nor does it tie into angels at all. we see Plato using this religious notion to signify certain characteristics of philosophic life (for the same reason he uses myth generally).

>>16854132
as well as this IN THE TEXT YOU CITE IT HAS A DIFFERENT WORD FOR CONSCIENCE, how can you still believe they're the same when the Greeks LITERALLY held them as different concepts. If you want to be a schizo and make shit up, whatever, but DON'T rope Plato into it.

>>16854549
I don't know by what you understand conscience. but there is the term suneidos, which is meant to convey a perception, a particular awareness, ''to have in one's mind''. Olympiodorus is among the most prominent platonists, you just misunderstand what he means by conscience.
>Socrates was the only man in Athens with the phenomenon of conscience?
No, but it is the depiction of the daimonic presence in Socrates' life that makes his character stand above others, and act ''weirdly'' in many ways.

>character is for man his daimon
This is exactly what those pictures say and what I have said, this is suneidos.

>this doesn't show daimons to be any active force
Are you retarded holy shit, it is the very potency that may lead one's soul, dismissing its active force is to dismiss it altogether.

>religious notion to signify...
There is basically no difference between the religious life and the philosophical life for platonists. One thing that is emphasized in Plato is the very divine character of the philosopher and the very divine nature of Forms.

>>16852146
They don't.

>>16854638
what are you even talking about

>>16854845
You still haven't proven that suneidos and daimon are the same thing, also you don't show how suneidos is tied to the soul: I don't care whatever Olympiodorus thinks, find it in Plato. If you get a lobotomy your conscience disappears, care to explain that one? Unless you wish to enlighten me as to what I'm missing regarding the concept of conscience.
>There is basically no difference between the religious life and the philosophical life for platonists
you are literally retarded. Just because Socrates calls the Forms as divine in the Republic, you think he's talking about something religious. Why don't you read a dialogue where he isn't dumbing down the concepts for an unphilosophical audience like the Parmenides, where philosophy is dealt with directly and without the need for myths or religious associations.

>>16852146
WTF is this made up nonsense. How is their transcendence and emanation between these things? Do objects in them literally transcend from one essence to another? I know nothing about neoplatonism, but from the looks of it:
(1) the one is the totality of all existence
(2) the nous is the attribute of thought, the infinite intellect which contains an understanding of all attributes and all modes of those attributes
(3) The world soul, or the totality of the physical world, in other words the attribute of extension understood through thought
(4) The sense world, or the individual finite and non-perminant modes of thoughts of physical things.

>>16854904
I'd like to remember you that the whole point of discussion was your arbitrary dismissing of the presence of diamons in the platonic system and in Plato's dialogues. After showing that they are mentioned in the writings of all platonists you dodged to their presence specifically in Plato. Now you are questioning what the daimons are and affirming that they are meant to be something different in Plato and in other platonists' writings.

>You still haven't proven that suneidos and daimon are the same thing,
See Phaedo 107d. Read Plotinus, read Olympiodorus, read Hermias, Proclus, Iamblichus, Simplicius, Syrianus. And most importantly: read Plato.

>how suneidos is tied to the soul, if you get lobotomy...
completely irrelevant to the discussion, just read a book, anon-chan!


>religion and philosophy are different things
you have absolutely no understanding of philosophy and platonism. i'll tell you this again: try reading books.

>>16855013
this discussion REALLY originated in my dismissal that the daemons are angels, and then that the daemons don't figure as similar entities in Plato, something I still think is more rhetorical than anything else. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding that I wasn't speaking of later writers under the name of platonism, and for that: gomenasai!
You seem committed to some religious dogma, so that I see further discussion with you will be fruitless ;_; I had fun discussing with you anon-sama, arigatou!!!

>>16855090
>>16852327
>''Daemons aren't a part of the Platonic system... they were simply introduced by Xenocrates because Plato didn't provide any divine influencing force for you to cope with''

>rhetorical
you are repeating this over and over when I have already asked you what you mean by rhetorical device. Much like angels may be a ''rhetorical device'' for link between God's energeia, or gods's, and human soul, the same may be for daimons.
I will ask for the last time: what do you think Plato tried to convey by daimons as rhetorical device.

>You seem committed to some religious dogma
You either are religious, that is, accept metaphysics, or you are a nihilist. That you try to reduce everything Plato says as rhetorical devices is expected that you will also apply this huge cope to the main theme in Platonic philosophy: Knowledge of God and Imitation of the Divine. That you try desperately to excise Platonism from its own essence already proves you know nothing about it. What a waste of a conversation.

>>16852365
>>16852333
>>16853056
Why do you take the low quality bait.

>>16853460
Are you a tranny tho? Or a femboy? Asking for a friend

>>16855166
Daemons as a similar entity to the biblical angel, this was meant

One of the more famous examples of a rehortical device in Plato is the pharmakon. When Plato calls lying or writing a pharmakon, he doesn't mean that they're like drugs, but he uses the ambiguous word which can mean medicine, poison, philter, or paint to point to a thing defined by its lack of definition. The use of rhetorical devices is supposed to make you think about why certain comparisons are drawn, and not to be taken literally (this should be obvious). Such is how I see the his usage of the daimon. What Plato is trying to convey is exactly the point! With all these religious associations to the term, and the way he uses it, what does he mean? That's what I'm working on anonymous!

If you define "religious" as simply accepting metaphysics, then go ahead, men like Deleuze don't seem very religious though...
Your religious dogma is showing though in your equation of the Good with God, if you're taking Augustine's word for it, then your religious behaviour is more than simply metaphysics! But rest easy that I agree with you in what you describe as the main theme in platonic philosophy, that much is certain.
Sorry you felt this was a waste ;_; I-I love you anon!
>>16855237
NO!

>>16852146
D: Stapler

>>16855340
>Daemons as a similar entity to the biblical angel, this was meant
No this was not meant in your first post. It is very explicit there that you first claimed no presence of daimons in Platonism. You were wrong and you cannot even admit it. End of story.

>Not to be taken literally, religious associations
So we have to dismiss all the references to the mysteries, to God, daimons, rites, devotions and aretalogies? The transcendence and divinity of the forms are not to be taken literally as well? The One and Demiurge are also not to be taken as divine... but all Plato did was to be still confined to sense-perception? So there is no metaphysics in Platonism?
Let's be honest here: it is not religiosity that is foreign to metaphysics and platonism but your own conception of it. There can't be religiosity without metaphysics and metaphysics will implicate in one's behavior as religious, this is the very connection between the Intellect and One, Spirit and God. How can you fail to realize this?

>What Plato is trying to convey is exactly the point! With all these religious associations to the term, and the way he uses it, what does he mean?
A more direct and literal understanding of it was already presented by me in my pictures on Plotinus' and Olympiodorus expositions.

>men like Deleuze don't seem very religious though...
Men like Deleuze are not metaphysicians (and consequently not even philosophers if you truly understand platonism and its purpose).

>Your religious dogma is showing though in your equation of the Good with God.
This is in Plato. This is in Plotinus, in Proclus, Iamblichus. This is in all platonists.