/lit/ - Literature

one of plotinus' students wrote 40 volumes trying to refute the gnostics. only the catholic church seethed harder at the truth.

>>17797032
Creation implies limitation and therefore imperfection, wether or not the Demiurge is evil or not is subjective from a human point of view

>>17797230
>Creation implies limitation
Define creation.

>>17797032
Gnosticism is satanic and occult

>>17797230
>Creation implies limitation and therefore imperfection

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/pantheists-in-spite-of-themselves-pannenberg-clayton-and-shults-on-divine-i/


Excerpt :

(...) we are told that the finite is that which is in distinction from something and is defined by the distinction. Now as the “negation of the finite,” the infinite must lack at least one of these properties of the finite, that is to say, either the infinite is not distinct from anything or the infinite is not defined by the distinction. But we have just seen that the infinite is defined by its distinction from the finite. The infinite is the opposite of the finite. It follows that the infinite must not, therefore, possess the first property of the finite, being in distinction from something. Therefore, the infinite and the finite cannot really be distinct; rather the infinite must be finite, which is a contradiction.

>>17797241
Have you ever considered that perhaps Abrahamism is, in actuality, the thing that's the satanic party here?

>>17797279
but Jesus is holy by all criterions

is plotinus difficult to read? I don't like going through secondary sources, I have read a fair amount of theology and philosophy

>>17797032
>>17797209
>>17797230
>>17797239
>>17797241
>>17797257
>>17797279
>>17797284
>>17797293
why didn't he write about christianity?

>>17797293
His enneads are pretty much a collection of lectures of various topics, only his followers attempted something of a systemisation.

>>17797293
I'm reading him right now and I'm pleasantly surprised with how accessible it is (easier than Spinoza at least). Just do some background reading beforehand and make sure you understand the meanings of the various technical terms he uses.

>>17797314
Neoplatonists were proto-perennialists many of them would go around and get initiated into various mystery cults, i guess he considered christianity, especially before it became heavy dogmatised. Origen was also one of his students.

>>17797279
Abrahamism isn’t occult you brainlet. Do you know what occult means? It means hidden knowledgeable- something that is only practiced in secret and away from public eye due to its highly controversial nature. Christianity isn’t hidden.

>>17797434
imagine calling the one tradition that has the balls to name satan, satanic. it's unreal.

>>17797434
He said it was satanic not occult.

>>17797351
The interchangeable character of gods across different polytheistic religions has nothing to do with something a bunch of modernist ex-Christian converts to Islam think unites "tradition."

>>17797474
Fester in your ignorance.

>>17797527
perennialism has descended into pure kitsch now, basically the mirror image of accelerationism with more prayer mats. it's a laughingstock now.

take the gnosticismpill, ie individuate your own knowledge of god and stop depending on "modernist ex-Christian converts to Islam" as that anon so perspicaciously put it

>>17797527
I could rattle off all the primary sources I have read from India and Greece but I won't. If you think you're enlightened from reading Evola and Guenon you didn't understand them either.

>>17797544
That's not even gnosticism that you are advocating for. It is much closer to theurgy or tantra. Unless you are working from some conception of gnosticism that isn't dualist, manichaean, etc., in which case you again have the wrong label.

>>17797560
Boy oh boy I sure am not tired of plebs on /lit/ telling me the main premises and motifs on gnosticism are not, in fact, gnostic. So you think gnosticism is dogmatic, collectivist, and authoritarian?

>>17797544
>perennialism has descended into pure kitsch
Who cares what hylics drag through the mud.

>>17797591
no, but it is certifiably kitsch.

evolutionist, pro-cosmic, monistic/non-dual systems (in perennialism) are all basically demiurge compliance dressed up with pretty words.

>>17797547
Why do retards always couple Evola with Guenon? They have completely different worldviews.

>>17797620
>evolutionist
explain

>>17798002
kind of a catch-all for systems that believe we're supposed to stick around and help the universe "evolve" into perfection. theosophy is an exemplar

it's just watered-down hegel with a heaping helping of incipient satanism (do you think history runs on air? think again)

>>17797279
>>17797284
The deluge, free will and you lose conscious when in extreme pain.

>>17797314
his disciple took care of that