/lit/ - Literature

>>21499617
.1 - "What is the Living Being and What is Man?" 9/1
I.2 - "On Virtue" 10/1
I.3 - "On Dialectic [The Upward Way]." 11/1
I.4 - "On True Happiness (Well Being)" 12/1
I.5 - "On Whether Happiness (Well Being) Increases with Time." 13/1
I.6 - "On Beauty" 14/1
I.7 - "On the Primal Good and Secondary Forms of Good [Otherwise, 'On Happiness']" 15/1
I.8 - "On the Nature and Source of Evil" 16/1
I.9 - "On Dismissal" 17/1

18/1 - Break / Discussion

II.1 - "On Heaven" 19/1
II.2 - "On the Movement of Heaven" 20/1
II.3 - "Whether the Stars are Causes" 21/1
II.4 - "On Matter" 22/1
II.5 - "On Potentiality and Actuality" 23/1
II.6 - "On Quality or on Substance" 24/1
II.7 - "On Complete Transfusion" 25/1
II.8 - "On Sight or on how Distant Objects Appear Small" 26/1
II.9 - "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of the Kosmos and The Kosmos Itself to be Evil" [generally quoted as "Against the Gnostics"] 27/1

28/1 - Break / Discussion

III.1 - "On Fate"
III.2 - "On Providence (1)."
III.3 - "On Providence (2)."
III.4 - "On our Allotted Guardian Spirit"
III.5 - "On Love"
III.6 - "On the Impassivity of the Unembodied"
III.7 - "On Eternity and Time"
III.8 - "On Nature, Contemplation and the One"
III.9 - "Detached Considerations"

7/2 - Break / Discussion

IV.1 - "On the Essence of the Soul (1)"
IV.2 - "On the Essence of the Soul (2)"
IV.3 - "On Problems of the Soul (1)"
IV.4 - "On Problems of the Soul (2)"
IV.5 - "On Problems of the Soul (3)” [Also known as, "On Sight"].
IV.6 - "On Sense-Perception and Memory"
IV.7 - "On the Immortality of the Soul"
IV.8 - "On the Soul's Descent into Body"
IV.9 - "Are All Souls One"

17/2 - Break / Discussion

V.1 - "On the Three Primary Hypostases"
V.2 - "On the Origin and Order of the Beings following after the First"
V.3 - "On the Knowing Hypostases and That Which is Beyond"
V.4 - "How That Which is After the First comes from the First, and on the One."
V.5 - "That the Intellectual Beings are not Outside the Intellect, and on the Good"
V.6 - "On the Fact that That Which is Beyond Being Does not Think, and on What is the Primary and the Secondary Thinking Principle"
V.7 - "On whether There are Ideas of Particular Beings"
V.8 - "On the Intellectual Beauty"
V.9 - "On Intellect, the Forms, and Being"

26/2 - Break / Discussion

VI.1 - "On the Kinds of Being (1)"
VI.2 - "On the Kinds of Being (2)"
VI.3 - "On the Kinds of Being (3)"
VI.4 - "On the Presence of Being, One and the Same, Everywhere as a Whole (1)"
VI.5 - "On the Presence of Being, One and the Same, Everywhere as a Whole (2)"
VI.6 - "On Numbers"
VI.7 - "How the Multiplicity of Forms Came Into Being: and on the Good"
VI.8 - "On Free Will and the Will of the One"
VI.9 - "On the Good, or the One"

7/3 - Final Discussion

>Alcibiades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDvzIOEyCe8
>Gorgias
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlbqM33klug
>Phaedo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCxSNs02sbA
>Cratylus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWWMTqBuJD4
>Theatetus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z1QrP22QQs
>Sophist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTgtlJuOSq0
>Statesman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc-1aROptog
>Phaedrus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hjJ-CVxhPk
>Symposium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHYHBIN9So0
>Philebus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIodvadBsm8
>Timaeus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKm8YV3WdiU
>Parminedes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcPBY71btgY

>>21499631
Define the Monad, then prove it exists. Surely this will be no issue for someone as well read as yourself?

>>21499617
You guys are good guys

>>21499685
The point is to read the work.

My copy arrive today.
This translation’s I.1 is titled “The Animate and the Man.” Any idea which is the more accurate translation?

>>21499702
Oh... so reading this book isn't going to be able to bring one to a coherent understanding of what is supposedly the most important concept in the book itself and in its encompassing tradition such that it can be defined and proven to exist? I guess I can just skip reading it.

A shame Plotinus was such a world-hating vegan. He could have very nearly been based.

>>21499712
>I guess I can just skip reading it.
(You), specifically, should.

>>21499742
He didn't hate the world, read his polemic against the Gnostics.

http://www.occult-mysteries.org/esoteric-philosophy01.html

>>21499712
I recommend for you to hide this thread.

It is officially the 9th of January in some parts of the world so the read along starts today. Reminder that we're going in the tradition ordering of Porphyry and reading one tractate per day starting with "What is the Living Being and What is Man?". Feel free to read the "Life of Plotinus" which is a nice overview of Plotinus as a person by Porphyry.

At the end of every Ennead there will be a day for break and discussion of the topics covered, the first of which will be on the 18th.

You can read and download MacKennas translation of the Enneads here:
https://archive.org/details/plotinustheennea033190mbp/page/n25/mode/2up

It is recommended to go with either MacKenna, Gerson or Armstrong (Which is the Loeb Classic Library set)

Good luck everyone and please contribute your thoughts after you read each tractate.

>>21499770
I simply desire an understanding of concepts that I would be spending hours of my life, possibly several hundreds of them in the case of a work like the Enneads, reading about. This is because I consider it moral to be in touch with reality. Specifically, I want to have knowledge of it, or physically act in a way that is conducive to greater understanding and enjoyment of it. But if you are proposing that I use that time to instead mull over words which cannot be defined or proven to be included in reality by those who are their chief exponents, then I must respectfully decline.

>>21499617
This article on why anything exists is worth reading. TL;DR: Since mathematics seems to be causeless and a logical necessity, mathematics is a good candidate for why reality exists. Something like Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is true, and this reality is a subset of all possible computations.

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

>>21499712
You aren't going to make it. I'm sorry.

>>21499746
He certainly hated himself. His refutation of the gnostics is not impressive, even though the gnostics are wrong.

Later guys like Proclus got rid of Plotinus world hatred.

>>21499799
I am reading along, but I don't believe any of this. I just want to play along.

I'm already being filtered by this first tractate, but I'm going to keep going cause I'll never read this otherwise. Looks like Ennead four will expand on it?

>>21499970
Plotinus doctrines are scattered throughout the text. In each tractate he focuses on a specific issue but it's always written in a way that assumes you already have full background knowledge of Plotinus' overall philosophy. So the first few are going to be a hard slog until you can start piecing together what his actual views are. For this reason it's helpful to have a companion that explains Plotinus' philosophy so you get that background knowledge in order to understand each tractate better. Neoplatonism by R.T Wallis is considered one of the best.

Reading it is going to be like a puzzle where some of the early stuff will leave you baffled because it assumes you already know things elucidated in later tractates.

>>21499685
The Whole, The All etc. It's a tricky concept to communicate. The all prevading state of oneness from which everything originates. You could perhaps compare it to the pre bigbang singularity but I don't think it's a very satisfactory comparison. I'm no expert in neoplatonism and recommend if you want to get a definite definition that you read the book.

>>21499804
>mathematics is a good candidate for why reality exists
Reality exists *for* mathematics? Or, in a similar way to mathematics, or, reality is fundamentally mathematical? Interesting article though. Cheers for sharing. I'll probably make comment about it in a latter thread.
Haven't read pic rel btw. I want to though.

>>21499909

>>21499970
Pic rel might help. Maybe not though. The diagram depicts an eternal reality, remember that.

>>21499710
You know I've seen those "Forgotten Books" editions for a long time on online storefronts but I'd never actually seen an edition of one. You sated a weird curiosity I didn't even know I had.

>>21499742
>>21499909
Given Plotinus's metaphysically-oriented, ascetic worldview, do you think Plotinus's influence is the reason so many midwits seem to accuse Augustine of being overly pessimistic and ascetic?

>>21499710
>>21500132
Same. How's the quality of the edition anon?

Is this normal or is this pdf I downloaded from libgen busted?

>>21500137
The short-sightedness and tendency to assume their opinions are the truth is what makes midwits erroneous. To the extent that what your saying about Augustine is true, it's possible that to the extent he was influenced by Plotinus he could have acquired a level of asceticism. I think asceticism is probably as much as reaction to the decadence of Roman society during the period as a result of serious philosophical commitment.
As for the pessimism, I haven't found that much of it yet in Plotinus and I'm into the second ennead. I think it's kind of a generalised materialist slur against idealists that they are pessimistic because idealism generally calls materialism out (mostly justifiably imo) for its worldliness. Just to back up that point I love the below quote from the Phaedo that address this topic in part:
>“Wars and revolutions and battles, you see, are due simply and solely to the body and its desires. All wars are undertaken for the acquisition of wealth; and the reason why we have to acquire wealth is the body, because we are slaves in its service.”

>>21499993
>>21500127
Thanks anons. Got some extra readings to do. I'm hoping to have a better grasp by the time we get to On Beauty.

>>21500163
It's not normal. That is an EPUB, correct? It shouldn't look like that nonetheless even if it isn't.

>>21500163
You can get a pdf from here brother: https://archive.org/details/plotinustheennea033190mbp/page/n29/mode/1up

Here's a question for the read-along: how legitimate do we think is the claim that the Plotonian system is a genuine continuation of the Platonic project/system?

>>21500435
I don’t know

>>21500443
kek, I hope you autist stick around

>>21500435
Pretty legitimate I think. Platos discourses are obviously not a systematic exposition of his thought, they're dialogues meant to bring up questions and propose potential answers. Middle Platonism is a logical extension of that, taking the proposed answers of Plato and systematizing them to form a coherent worldview. Neoplatonism goes a step further and fuses Platonism with mysticism

>the enneads are almost 1000 pages
Its 2 much for my attention span.

>>21500611
Each tractate is relatively short and can easily be read in a day. Most of them probably only take half hour or so.

Hey OP glad I woke up to find this starting. I just got a nice hardcover of the MacKenna translation a few weeks ago and have been wanting to read it. Thanks for this thread, I will be reading along and giving my thoughts if necessary. Going forward, just to be clear: the We is the ego and its personality, the couplement is the union between the lower soul, which is the animate containing the body, intellectual and sensational factors in us, and the highest soul is simply The One but is seemingly fractioned out in the myriad sentient forms?

>>21500875
Not OP, take my opinion with a grain of salt, I welcome corrections from more learned anons.
>the We is the ego and its personality
From what I've seen so far Plotinus seems to us 'We' in what I would take to be a sense more like 'collective consciousness', it seems to me to include everyone of our souls in their higher or more refined degrees, as well as the Intellectual Principle (Divine Mind), its contents, and the World Soul (of which our souls form parts).
Couplement sounds about right I reckon.
>highest soul is simply The One but is seemingly fractioned out in the myriad sentient forms?
The generally accept terminology seems to be that of emanation or overflow. The One doesn't become fractioned, it remains One, I wonder if other anons would agree with me in calling this a panentheist system? It would be more accurate to say each of us qua minds are a part of the Divine Mind (but that would perhaps be wrong and confusing because I'm fairly certain the Divine Mind is also eternally unchanging).

All Platonism is pure Materialism, i.e. Catholicism.

Mah man im in
This will certainly anger the archonds

Has anyone here read Eric Perl's Thinking Being. Was thinking of reading the Plotinus chapter before starting.
>>21499804
Is Tegmark's hypothesis really compatible with Neoplatonism? I have a copy of that but haven't read it yet.

>>21501080
It's a Brill book so it costs a gorillion dollars so probably not

>>21499804
>Since mathematics seems to be causeless and a logical necessity, mathematics is a good candidate for why reality exists.
I would agree if this exact assertion hadn't already been thoroughly debunked by Aristotle.

>>21501125
libgen son

>>21501080
>Is Tegmark's hypothesis really compatible with Neoplatonism
I don't know about Neoplatonism but it's claimed (by who?) to be a form of Platonism.

>>21501127
I just remove the term reality and say mathematics is all that exists. Maths has causeless, necessary being, therefore it is Being.
Anyway. I was actually just looking at some of the last books of Tot's metaphysics and his criticisms of this theory. Could you summarise his "debunking" for me please?

>>21500963
>From what I've seen so far Plotinus seems to us 'We' in what I would take to be a sense more like 'collective consciousness', it seems to me to include everyone of our souls in their higher or more refined degrees, as well as the Intellectual Principle (Divine Mind), its contents, and the World Soul (of which our souls form parts).
Ah ok. Yeah im gonna print out a chart that depicts his cosmology to help understand this. Apprecuate the response, anon. Im happy someone decided to make this read along thread, been wanting to approach Plotinus now for a while but never had the energy to jump into him even after getting the enneads itself. I hope these threads stay active

Bump

Trying to get the motivation..this spanish version is thoroughly commented with footnotes and introductory text to each ennead.

I am interested in greek philosophy, but the motivation of some anons here (the ones talking about aquinas, understanding better theology and christianism..) puts me a bit off. How I can reframe the interest? I am not reading augustine or aquinas or any scholastic thing in the near future (yeah "i will never make it" and whatever)

>>21502389
After finishing today's reading I'm now able to sufficiently explain how I'm not the one actually annoying someone, it's the composite (who's also me). I'm sure even more valuable information will be found as the days progress.

>>21502389
There is a guy called Vervaeke, a cognitive science professor from U of Toronto, he's been shilling Neoplatonism for a while now, he converseses with Christians in this subject often but he himself is a fairly reliable "scientist" and you might be able to vibe with him more. He coincidentally has a new video series premiering today which I have been anticipating.
Other anons say not to waste time with him but I like him.

>>21502735
>>21502389
I ment to link his youtube channel, but just do a search there and he'll pop up.

>>21500132
>>21500150
Quality is great. I did read that this translation uses more Platonic allusions, allegory, and metaphor, hence the differences in the title of the first treatise. Interested to see if any differences arise in our discussions between anons with other translations.
I’ve read most of Plato and have an okay grasp of his philosophy; hopefully I won’t get filtered

>>21502389
This is pretty much the pinnacle of Greek philosophy. This metaphysics is what the Christians (essentially) stole and claim they got by revelation, then destroyed the traces of doing so.

>>21500411
Thank you. Gonna try to follow along with you guys.

>>21502389
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIJuIN6kUcU
The first video just went out.
and for the anons who wants to neg me for linking Verkaeke, I'll respond by asking who else is talking about Socrates, Plato, Plontinus right now? If he is wrong, I would listen to a brief retort as to why.

>>21503174
>>21503028
>>21502739
>>21502584

Thanks for the input on this topic. I had kind of a prejudice against Plotinus due to what I perceive is the use of his philosophy in gnostic and esoteric stuff all the time.

>>21499685
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

<yawn>

I made some summary notes condensing this marvellous treatise. Let me know if you guys want me to post.

>>21503367
Of course we want you to post. I have a hunch that some even want you to post to see if you can do what was requested here: >>21499712. That would make sense, considering how important the concept is.

>>21503424
It's mostly not my words but the words from the treatise condensed into a few posts' length. Also has anybody else noticed that the Enneads just reads like Hellenic Buddhism at times?

Notes from I.1:
>The individual soul has psychological distinctions.
It is clear that passions reside in a different part of the soul than ratiocination or opinion.
>Is the soul a composite aggregate?
Is there any difference between the soul and the soul-essence? If so then it is a composite aggregate. If not then the soul would be a form and we must admit it is immortal.
>The soul is not essence.
If the soul were essence she would not be able to partake in mixture or change; she would not have fears nor passions; she would be unreceptive and unperceptive of the external and unable to suffer. Yet all this is clearly not the case.
>The soul uses the body as a tool.
How do passions from the body penetrate into the soul? If soul were separate from the body then one individual would suffer while a different one would be affected. It is philosophy (logos) that separates the soul and the body, which were originally one.
>The relation of the body and the soul before separation was a primitive one.
They were probably mingled together, with the body being the independent part and the soul its instrument; however, philosophy raises the latter to the rank of the former, and she grows independent of the body.
>There are consequence of the mixture of the soul and the body.
The body improves by participation with the soul; the soul deteriorates by association with irrationality and death.
>The soul and the body cannot be completely mixed.
They are incommensurables.
>Not all affections are common to the soul and body.
There are some which require the excitation of blood and bile and are entirely bodily. The desire for goodness on the contrary belongs entirely to the soul.
>The soul's faculties, by presence, while remaining unmoved, cause reactions in our organs that enter them into movement.
The soul and body form an aggregate where the organism's life belongs to neither fully. If corporeal emotion finds its term in the soul, the soul feels.
>Animal nature is formed by the soul.
However it is not the soul's nature in itself; it is instead the nature of the composite formed by the soul and body.
>Our higher principles concur in forming the manifold complex of human nature.
Hence the soul-body feels sensation.
>The soul only perceives the typical forms, i.e. intelligible portion, of sense objects impressed on the animal sense.
The soul receives only image of the external sensation the animal feels. Rtiocination, opinion, and thought deal exclusively with these images.
>There is a superior part of the soul, we who direct this organistaion and a lower part of the soul which is mixed with the body and is irrational.
It is this part of the soul that partakes in Nous.
>The One hovers over intelligible nature. We, on the third hypostases, partake in the World Soul which permeates all bodies.
She is indivisible and in the universe.

>If she does not mix with bodies then how does she give life?
She remains individuals and gives out images of herself. These images form the faculties of the individual soul: sensation in the common part; and the forms which derive successively from each other down to the faculties of generation.
>The World Soul in creation of the individual souls is foreign to the cause of the evils man suffers.
So is the highest part of the soul, even though ratiocination belongs to it, as the latter can be the cause of great evils when mastered by the lower parts of our nature.
>Often we yield to appetite and anger, and to even lower sensation. These are the result of the soul being duped by imperfect images.
Our imagination/fantasy does not await the judgement of discursive reason. In such a case the intellect did not grasp the object itself.
>The real Man differs from the body.
"We" is taken in a double sense: either the soul with the animal body; or simply the upper part, while the body is a beast.
>the virtues consist not in wisdom but in ethical habits and austerity. They belong to the common part.
Friendships however are some referred to the common part and some to the pure Soul or inner Man.
>The superior principle, which at first seems inactive in relation to us, only begins to be active towards us when it advances as far as the middle part of our being.
To utilise the superior principle, we must direct this middle part of our being towards either the upper or lowerd worlds. This is actualisation of Aristotelian "potentiality" or Stoic "habit."
>Animal bodies can be defined according to this animating principle as human souls that have sinned.
Those animals into whose bodies no human soul have entered are produced by illumination of the World Soul.
>The common doctrine that the soul sins and undergoes punishment in Hades is not necessarily incompatible with this doctrine.
Philosophy's separation of the soul refers not only to body, but to passible accretions. The combination of the pure soul with that which experiences passions and sins is what undergoes punishment.
>The animal nature is generated when the soul descends.
As she inclines towards the body the soul sheds light onto what is below her and thereby produces an image of herself. But when she is entirely occupied in contemplating the intelligible world, this image vanishes.
>It is we, by means of the soul which makes this research. The soul considers itself.
As for the Intelligence (Nous) it is only ours insofar as the soul is intelligent; for us the higher life consists in a better thinking, when the intellect is both a part of ourselves, and a part of something superior towards which we ascend.

>>21500137
asceticism was growing popular among Christians in general around that time. Augustine was par for the course.

>>21503466
>>21503475
Interesting thanks anon.
>animals into whose bodies no human soul have entered
I didn't think he held this to be the case? I thought human souls could attach to animals but not animate them?

>>21499710
A more acurate translation would be: "On what is the animal and what is the man".

>>21500137
>Given Plotinus's metaphysically-oriented, ascetic worldview, do you think Plotinus's influence is the reason so many midwits seem to accuse Augustine of being overly pessimistic and ascetic?

Yes absolutely.

>"Hercules was a hero of practical virtue. By his noble serviceableness he was worthy to be a God. On the other hand, his merit was action and not the Contemplation which would place him in the higher realm. Therefore while he has a place above, something of him remains below."
/x/-fags, did Plogina just explain how ghosts work?

>>21503800
No. Thats not how I read it. Hes explaining different parts of the soul.

Quite separately from Plotinus: I understand ghosts to wander earth (in a spectral or spiritual, I.e. immaterial way), whereas Plotinus claims the shade of Heracles is in Hades.

>>21503598
Not OP, but here's the relevant quote:
>And the animals, in what way or degree do they possess the Animate?

If there be in them, as the opinion goes, human Souls that have sinned, then the Animating-Principle in its separable phase does not enter directly into the brute; it is there but not there to them; they are aware only of the image of the Soul [only of the lower Soul] and of that only by being aware of the body organised and determined by that image.

Animal's souls exist as shadows of the lower Soul, passions and instinct, >by a radiation from the All-Soul.

I think OP's analysis is correct, because the soul that enters animals are only a shadow of humans souls and >do not enter directly into the brute

>Pleasure and distress, fear and courage, desire and aversion, where have these affections and experiences their seat? Clearly, either in the soul alone, or in the soul as employing the body, or in some third entity deriving from both.
Plotinus seems to reject corporal causes at the outset. Why must emotions pertain to soul, if (metaphysical) soul even exist? Why, I wonder if Plotinus would argue fire otherwordly? Because by all means there is not anything in chopped wood which tells of warmth and light and life, but for all that fire still burns. There might not be anything in man (matter) which tells of warmth and light and life, but for all that, man still lives.

>>21503883
I'm the guy that posted the notes, not OP, and yes that makes sense.

It seems like Plotinus is getting at something similar to the hypostatic union of Christ. Where the divine nature and the human nature combine in a single person who is Christ. The Soul combines with the body to create an individual human, however the Soul qua Soul remains it's own thing and so too the body, but it is only the admixture of the two that creates a person.

Beautiful. This is why you read Plotinus.

>>21503932
>If this be so, then, indeed, we may think of the soul as an immortal—if the immortal, the imperishable, must be impassive, giving out something of itself taking nothing...
Giving out necessitates diminution; diminution necessitate destruction; destruction necessitates mortality. Is the soul self-destructive? No. The soul is not giving out but instead must be growing in. It is positive abundance.
>Whatever possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling, unchangeable, within its own peculiar nature. And can any increase bring joy, where nothing not even anything good, can accrue? What such an Existence is, it is unchangeably.
Plotinus mistakes Existence for Existing. (As he did in the above excerpt when he mistakes 'soul' for 'soul-ing'). I've written this before, but I will write it once more: I believe—in regards to the Platonic Forms—that the Principle has been abandoned in favor of the Purpose. The Is Good, is abandoned in favor of the Being Good; Permanence enters Eternity—Permanence regresses into Eternity. Be turns into Being. This Being is not an Eternity, but is(-ing) an Eternity(-ing). The present-continuous as you know it. Eternity is accruing; thus, Existing is accruing. Hence, Happinessing and Joying are accruing so long as Sadnessing and Grieving are not destroying them.

What would Plotinus think of Anime?

>>21503883
>>21503960
Do we agree then that animals are animated by this lower half, this "image of the Soul" but that the human soul doesn't enter into them?
Seems to me he's saying, in the simplified way I understand it, that we share animal nature, but only humans participate in a higher, rational nature. Or that animal nature is akin to human nature bereft of reason.

>>21504136
Interesting post here, but:
>Eternity is accruing; thus, Existing is accruing.
This seems to imply change in eternity which seems like a logical contradiction to me.

>>21503986
Yeah, but notice this applies to everyone, not just the messiah. Everyone IS this combination. This is tied to why Platonism doesn't need grace or the sacraments. Also I'm pretty sure that the Church appropriated this basic structure from Platonism.

>>21504000
Ay, this is one of my favourite passages in the tractate. The image of many faces in one mirror is quite beautiful.

>>21504200
I wrote Eternity instead of Eternity(-ing) because I didn't want to be autistic about it. There is no Eternity; only Permanence. Eternity necessitates time, and time necessitates moving. Thus, Permanence in time is Eternity(-ing) or Eternity for short. Only Permanence is unchanging because it exist outside of time.

>>21504180
Plotinus didn‘t bathe because it constituted paying care to the body and was notoriously impossible to be around because of the stench so

>>21504223
Nah. You've lost me frogman.
>>21504230
This is the sort of shit that makes me have doubts about this question >>21500435 like how can you have eudaimonia if you asceticism is going so far that you stink. That seems too extreme to me but maybe I just can't follow Plotinus that far.

>>21504352
Eternity is Permanence experiencing itself. Permance was, is and will be; Eternity was(-ing), is(-ing) and will(-ing) be(-ing). The Good is, was and will be. It can never be destroyed because to be destroyed necessitates destroying. Destroying has to do with time, but there is no time in Permanence. Thus the Good is unchanging and permanent but not eternal.

>>21504230
Based

>>21504386
As I see it, if something is unchanging and permanent then it is eternal...

>>21504421
Permanence is complete, eternity is not.

I'm kind of a brainlet and have had trouble understanding parts of the first reading today but am pushing through and re-reading.
Thanks to the anons that share their notes here to help others.

>>21504425
I think I'm getting you now. I'm accustomed to associate eternity with recurrence (probably bc of Nietzsche and the Stoics) thus as a limited loop. Your articulation makes sense as well though.
>Be turns into Being.
Maybe this is why Plato is alleged to have written
>There is not any writing of mine on these matters, nor will there ever be, for this is a thing which cannot be put into words like other doctrines.
Maybe that reversion to the simple 'Be' is the idea of union with The One/The Good...?
It's very "he who knows doesn't tell, he who tells doesn't know" isn't it? I like your expression though. Good for a frogposter

>>21503262
>gnostic
He literally wrote a treatise attacking the Gnostics for misinterpreting Plato. I would also wager he was more influential on Christians (Augustine couldn't stop referencing the guy) than modern esotericists.

Is it me or is the Plotinus Reader by Gerson (left) unreadable compared to Mackenna's translation? I read the first tractate on the left and it was opaque as fuck

>>21504560
>Maybe that reversion to the simple 'Be' is the idea of union with The One/The Good... ?
There is this idea that I can not divest myself of which goes like this: Regression is the secret to Progression. Much like a caterpillar which abandons crawling in favor of the cocoon, it seeks this purpose for an even greater principle. The Initial Principle (movement in the form crawling) regresses into dormancy, but this is done for the Purpose of the Final Principle (movement in the form of flying). The Platonic Forms abandon Permanence for Eternity, but for what purpose, I do not know.

>>21504963
I'm reminded of a chassidic teaching about repentance. The idea is there is a tether between the soul and God, when it is cut by sin through repentance the soul pulls up its end of the tether and pulls down Heavenly end to retie the connection. Fascinating idea, keep me updated

>>21504781
Yeah fuck that. The MacKenna translation is quite clear for the subject matter imo. It only makes it harder when you bring other modernist interpretations into the equation. Do you want to understand someone's interpretation of Plotinus or do you want to understand Plotinus?

>>21504781
Gersons translation is far more literal and academic while MacKennas takes a few liberties and is more poetic. Strictly speaking Gersons translation is more faithful to the original Greek but there's no doubt that MacKenna's rendering is far more pleasant to read.

>read Porphyry's life of Plotinus
>one page in
>"at the age of eight [...] he still clung about his nurse and loved to bare her breasts and take suck; one day he was told he was a 'perverted imp,' and so was shamed out of the trick."
Is this the secret to understanding the truths of the Monad?

>>21505048
>will never cling about my nurse's bare breasts to suck
it hurts bros...

>>21505048
Plotinus, like all great thinkers, had great appreciation for mommy milkers

Hey Monadbros, I've got a question.
THE DEMIURGE. Is it the same as the World Soul, or is it something different? Pretty sure the way Plotinus' cosmology plays out, the Demiurge and the World Soul are one and the same. I am not certain though.

>>21505107
I thought it was closer to the Intellectual-Principle (Divine Mind). Could be wrong though.

I was able to pick up a cheap copy of The Cambridge companion to Plotinus.
Anyone here read it/have any thoughts on it?

>>21503028
>Christians essentially stole

Aquinas explicitly based his explanations of Christian theology on aristotle though

>>21505193
It's very good, however word of warning, the new edition that was just published replaces ALL the contributors from the first edition except Lloyd Gerson. This is a huge shame because contributors to the original Cambridge Companion to Plotinus included Dominic O'Meara, Stephen R.L Clark, John Dillion and John Rist all of who are considered the leading experts in the area of Neoplatonism and Plotinus studies.

The NEW Cambridge Companion to Plotinus replaces ALL of these guys for relative nobodies. If I had the choice I'd get the old one. Here are the pages for the two editions so you can compare authors and the articles

Original: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-plotinus/C4AA3DBA09C5B198332E14D93D61CB12

New: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/new-cambridge-companion-to-plotinus/4DF4C886862E71784C36E8964390E8B3

>>21505216
He also used a fair bit of Proclus from the book of Causes, originally thought to be authored by Aristotle, also directly through Pseudo-Dionysius. As a result Aquinas unwittingly added a lot of Neoplatonic doctrines without realizing they were Platonic doctrines, not Aristotles.

>>21503458
if you want to write it up into an article I will publish it here >>21503319. Just leave a comment on any page if you are interested. I will get it

>>21505216
We're not talking about aristotle are we...

>>21505288
Hey, if the shoe fits

>>21505280
I've got the old one.

>>21505144
The intellectual principle is only responsible for the world of intelligibles, though, isn't it? I assumed that the demiurge would be the one that constructs and manages material reality, which, presumably, is the World Soul? Or would it be something else, perhaps even the One itself?

Anybody going to make the thread for I.2 or is everyone gone already?

>>21506171
I was wondering the same thing. I might. I am still reading the second tractate and taking notes.

>>21506171
>>21506205
Fuck it, new bread:
>>21506236

>>21505048
Actually yes. Take a close look of this symbol of monad and think about what it resembles :)

>>21506244
Honestly I think it's better to just make a post announcing the start of a new tractate than to make a new thread for each day. These threads are slow, we can make a new one when the current thread hits the bump limit instead of having multiple semi-dead threads in the catalog at once to divide potential posters between them.

>>21506470
It all makes sense now.

Who's he talking about when he says that people with Civic Virtue have assimilate or at least somewhat assimilated with the divine?

>>21506538
Yeah, you're right. That's more reasonable. I'll delete the other thread. Disregard earlier post, I suck cocks

>>21506707
Those who have mastered the civic virtues. Those who are wise, temperate, brave, and just in daily life. The ideal Citizen.

Drooling retard with memory problems here. I just read the first tractate yesterday and will read the second in a minute.
Am I correct in understanding what Plotinus is saying to be this:
>the faculties of sensation rest in the lower soul
>the faculty of intellection rests in the upper soul
>the couplement is the union of matter and soul
>the soul is in its particular/individual form when joined with a body but when not so joined it is some kind of Intellect-Soul in the same way as the World-Soul is particular when reflected by animals
?

>>21506929
Doesn't sound too far off

>>21506929
>>the soul is in its particular/individual form when joined with a body but when not so joined it is some kind of Intellect-Soul in the same way as the World-Soul is particular when reflected by animals
I have no fucking idea what you're trying to say here. The parallel between the individual soul and the world soul is the following:
>upper soul of both dwell in the intelligible realm
>lower soul of both are tied to materiality, perception and action

II.5 is comfiest part of today's reading.

>>21507611
For me it's

>>21506929
>the faculties of sensation rest in the lower soul
Yes

>the faculty of intellection rests in the upper soul
Yes

>the couplement is the union of matter and soul
Yes

>the soul is in its particular/individual form when joined with a body but when not so joined it is some kind of Intellect-Soul in the same way as the World-Soul is particular when reflected by animals
Kind of. To put it in modern scientific parlance the relationship between World Soul and individual souls is like a field that has parts that are excited and produce "particles". In reality the particles are portions of one and the same field in an excited state. The World Soul is the summation of all of creation, the soul of the totality of all created things. Individual souls are portions of that World Soul that exist in an energized state within a body.

Starting with the Greeks like you guys told me. Still on Mythology by Edith Hamilton but only because I'm balancing it with some fiction books I'm reading right now. I'll be able to join you guys within a year or so god willing.

>>21507512
1.1.11 about reincarnating as an animal is tripping him up. Sorry it's rotated but I'm a physical book guy.

>>21504501
>re-reading
Don't
Give your mind a break and read the discussion

>>21499617
A few thoughts from tonight's reading.
I'm curious as to what the first line means in Greek
>Since Evil is here, 'haunting this world by necessary law', and it is the Soul's design to escape from Evil, we must escape hence.
I'm curious because Plotinus has already alluded to ghosts, shades, and shadows.

Any anons know which of the following Greek words are used?
>στοιχειώνω (ghost)
>συχνάζω (frequent)
>βασανίζω (linger in the mind)

Discussing civic virtues and natural law
>any participation in Ideal-Form produces some corresponding degree of Likeness to the formless Being There. And participation goes by nearness: the Soul nearer than the body, therefore closer akin, participation more fully and shows a godlike presence, almost cheating us into the delusion that in the Soul we see God entire

Participating in the Ideal-Form (goodness/virtue) materializes the forms in some sense, another shadow or piece of the Highest Good and therefore in the supreme. Plato understood the forms to be completely inaccessible except through idealism, yet Plotinus says that the form participates more directly. Yet we must be careful, for these are still mere shadows or small pieces of the ultimate Good.

>As speech is the echo of the thought in the Soul, so thought in the Soul is an echo from elsewhere: that is to say, as the uttered thought is an image of the soul-thought, so the soul-thought images a thought above itself and is the interpreter of the higher sphere.

It was understandable why one anon recommended reading Timaeus and Parmenides before this. Plotinus is echoing one of Plato's major hurdles-- that no thought is wholly original or independent. Ideas are 'discovered' rather than 'formulated' in many ways. This idea frustrated Plato, but Plotinus seems to just accept it as part of his hierarchical metaphysics.

I'm just going to put down my sloppy notes and leave questions/comments at the bottom.
--

-discursive reason
-Intellection
-SPs (Sense Perceptions)
-Soul
- individual soul vs Soul-In-Itself/Soul-Kind
Soul + body = Animate/Couplement
The Intellectual Principle is the summit of our being/Soul, either if it is in the S-i-i or one's own Soul
SPs belong to the Animate
The Soul deduces Intellegibles from the Animate when it performs it's sensing faculty
these include...
- discursive-reasoning
- sense-knowledge
- intellection
Individual(lower) Soul + Soul-in-itself(higher) = "the We"/personality
S-i-i shines into people giving them likenesses/images of itself like the different angles of a mirror
such as...
-SPs
-generation
-growth
-producing offspring

Evil/practical reason (as a virtue) is in the Animate

The Soul is sinless, but the lower Soul can be ascribed with sin if it is compounded with the body
"We reason by the fact of being Soul"

--

Got a lot of impressions from Plato. I hate reading greek philosophy as a dabbler because I don't know ancient greek and can't really know how tight the concepts Plato/Plotinus/Homer etc. are using when they respond to each other's works.

What is the "We"?

>>21508206
>Starting with the Greeks
>Edith Hamilton
Do you want to read the greeks or read about people's interpretation of the greeks? This meme needs to stop. Just read the first hand sources. I find it very difficult to believe people can be this dumb and if they are they should just play fortnight so something.

>>21508206
>>21508820
Pseud fight!

>>21508769
This has my take on the 'We' >>21500963

>Since Evil is here, "haunting this world by necessary law," and it is the soul's design to escape from Evil, we must escape hence.
The Good and The Evil are not interacting because that necessitates time. The Good is not growing because it already is growth, and Evil is not destroying neither itself nor others because it already is destruction. Growing and destroying necessitates time. In this world where time is existing, growing and destroying are existing as well. The Being Good is not escaping The Being Evil but instead meeting it. The Being Evil is, if there be no other beings around it, destroying itself. The Being Good knows only of Growing and Adding—Lessening and Subtracting is the work of The Being Evil. The Being Good's only defence when met with The Being Evil is waiting for The Being Evil self-destruction all the while Adding to the Subtracting and Growing the Lessening it sustains therein.

>>21508889
But he talks about purification, the elimination of appetites including those sexual and gastrointestinal concern, before you turn towards higher virtues to live like god. Unless that's what you mean by Adding to the Subtracting.
>>21500963
>It would be more accurate to say each of us qua minds are a part of the Divine Mind (but that would perhaps be wrong and confusing because I'm fairly certain the Divine Mind is also eternally unchanging).
If I remember my history of philosophy correctly this concept got Avicenna labeled a heretic for repeating this idea. I think he thought Aristotle wrote part of the Enneads too.

>>21508820
Why are you being mean?

>>21508889
"In attaining Likeness to God," we read. And this is explained as "becoming just and holy, living by wisdom," the nature grounded in Virtue.
Agree. Though I would rather phrase the ending as "the nature being grounded in Virute".
>"... To what Divine-Being, then, would our Likeness be?...
*To what Divine-Being, then, would our Likenessing be?, or To what Divine-Being, then, would our Likeness be(-ing)?
>But, at the beginning, we are met by the doubt whether even in this Divine-Being all the virtues find place—Moral-Balance, for example; or Fortitude where there can be no danger, since nothing is alien; where there could be nothing alluring whose lack could induce the desire of possession.
The Divine-Being is possessing The Being Good; thus it is possessing Growing and Adding, not Lessening and Subtracting. Therefore, it keeps Moral-Balance by Growing and Adding to each moral. Lessening a moral is the act of The Being Evil which the Divine-Being is not possessing. The Divine-Being ,having Growing, is possessing what Plotinus calls Fortitude as well because Growing only wills Growing, and thus there is time when Lessening and Growing stalemate one another. Such a state is called Fortitude. The Divine-Being possessing Adding and Growing implies it is Adding and Growing its lack. This is not desire, but merely the work of Adding and Growing
>>21508936
>the elimination of appetites including those sexual and gastrointestinal concern
Elimination has to do Destroying and Lessening—the working of The Being Evil. The Being Good takes care of those appetites by Adding and Growing its lack while not neglecting other appetites and moral duties.

>>21508889
>The Being Good knows only of Growing and Adding—Lessening and Subtracting is the work of The Being Evil.
Nah. Subtracting faults and vices is good. Adding vices is bad.

>>21508955
It's called being honest.

>>21507701
>virtue is a thing of the soul: it does not belong to the Intellectual-Principle or to the Transcendence
Plotinus is definitely a Guenonian.

>>21509160
The Being Good does not subtract. Wherever The Being Evil is Subtracting or Lessening itself, The Being Good comes in and is Adding and Growing in there. Eventually, The Being Evil completely destroys itself and The Being Good completely nutures itself in there.

>>21509203
Your forcing this imo. If someone hits me and I choose not to react, to withhold action, there is no addition or growth. There is the breftness of reaction, I subtract my anger and this is considered good. The whole idea of asceticism drawing one nearer to the Divine is based on subtraction not addition.

>>21509323
>If someone hits me and I choose not to react, to withhold action, there is no addition or growth
Yes, therefore there is no Being Good here. What's the disagreement?
>I subtract my anger
How? What does the subtracting? What is taking its place if anything at all according to you?
>and this is considered good.
Why? Is neutrality good?
>The whole idea of ascetiscism drawing one nearer to the Divine is based on subtraction not addition.
And I do not agree and neither have you offered why I should. Subtracting, Destroying, and Lessening have to do with Being Evil. Do you agree? Or do you believe that Being Good sometime entails Subtracting, Destroying or Lessening? What are some Good Beings which subtract, destroy or lessen? Does the Divine subtract? If not, shall we need to subtract our subtraction?

>>21509163
I'm reading it in preparation for reading the myths though. I just wanted a refresher on the myths together first.

>>21509370
>What are some Good Beings which subtract, destroy or lessen?
A physical trainer. A spiritual trainer. Ever hear of Nansen killing the cat?

>>21509565
Just jump into Hesoid dude. You don't need someone between you and the text. This isn't a university and you don't need. professor arbitrating your understanding for you. Unless you learn to think for yourself the classics will hold no value and will not edify you in the slightest. Have more faith in yourself bro, I do.

>>21509370
>Self Control (a key component of sophrosyne) is neutral
... Yeah your missing the mark here frognon. You don't have all the answers bro, no one does. At least be willing to admit you know nothing like a good Socratic.

>>21509888
>Hesiod

>>21499617
>Neoplatonism
Hahaha. As soon as you lot want to grow up and actually want a real answer to the problem of evil, Gnosticism will be here for you.

Just a reminder that Gnosticism caused Plotinus to have a Chris-Chan worthy autistic meltdown.

>>21508877
so for the We so far we've stated:
>taken in a double sense: either the soul with the animal body; or simply the upper part, while the body is a beast.
>collective consciousness
>personality
>higher Soul (nous) mixed with the lower Soul (dianoia)
--
What I found from outside sources.
>Dillon, the editor, points out that Plotinus’ notion of the “we” prefigured Freud’s “ego,” but this feels tacked on, like when they said Epictetus prefigured modern neuropsychology.)
From a book
>libgen (dot) is/book/index.php?md5=79318A563072C68D81FD807816B350E5
>"Plotinus thinks that his ‘we’ or self (hēmeis, autos) can refer both to the embodied and worldly composite [Couplement] as well as to pure rational soul [Soul-In-Itself]."
>"Plotinus’ choice of the plural ‘we’ (hēmeis) in place of the modern singular ‘I’ in posing the central question: ‘Who are we?’ For him, as for most ancient philosophers, each consciousness grasps, ideally, the very same world".

I'm still not sure if We refers to a mix of high Soul and low Soul (which is the part of the Soul which mixes with the body and creates the Couplement/Animate) or if it can refer purely to high Soul, or just the multiple conscious awareness of people in whichever state of Soul they happen to have active.
I'm also not sure if this is going to be a common working concept going forward so maybe it's not worth trying to drill down on it.

>>21509928
Also interesting to see that Aristotle uses dianoia (Plotinus: the rational animal/lower soul, as a rational soul in time) for knowledge of mathematical and technical subjects.

The Intro to Magic trilogy is so good. There is a section dedicated to Plotinus in the third volume.

>>21510002
According to Porphyry Plotinus once used his Star Beam Attack to defeat a rival philosopher

>>21509884
By Good Beings I meant such things as Nurturing, Thanking, Helping. Nevertheless, none of those are fully Good Beings. They are corrupted. Perhaps it is the Evil (or Neutral) which does the subtracting, destroying or lessening.
>>21509903
>>Self Control (a key component of sophrosyne) is neutral
So Self Control is a neutral good? Forgetting the inherent contradiction, I'll offer my view. I assume then that Self Control lessens Evil indirectly. What then? What shall the opiod addict gain from lessening 7 shots a week to 1 shot a week? He will instead be spending his time with Self Control. What is that? Not doing drugs I imagine, but that is not Being Good. Only Being Good is Being Good. Self Control makes way for Being Good, but it is not in itself Being Good. Self Control also limits Good Beings. One might wish for Learning and Thinking all day, but Nuturing and Caring for the body is necessary. Thus, Self Control lessens some Good Beings. Though in this instance, Self Control makes way for other Good Beings, but one can imagine a person who, when he stops reading, spends his time with vices. Self Control would have rather benefited the man by not interfering. Therefore, Self Control is neutral and by definition, is not Good or Evil; Self Control may benefit Good or Evil.
I believe Self Control might be peculiar to this world and should rather be Controlling Oneself.

>>21510190
>He will instead be spending his time with Self Control. What is that?
Being temperate, moderate. Trying to lessen his intake to become Good, thus doing good, or at least better, I.e betterment.
Your going of the schizometor bro. I see what your point is about self control being neutral. An evil man can still have self control. But nobody would claim that it is a neutral thing, it is a virtue and virtues are good things. It might be put to bad use but it's still a good thing. At least that's how I look at it.

>>21508296
Retard here. You're right, I was confusing this passage with others when I posted.
>>21507770
So does that mean Plotinus subscribes to a similar doctrine as the Hindu position in which individuals are illusory divisions of Brahman? Obviously the World-Soul isn't also the Monad, but does it function in a similar manner as Brahman interfaces with maya in order to produce individuals?

>>21508877
"We" is definitely not the collective unconscious. It is the self in manner of speaking, hence the quotes; or in other words the individual self/ego.

I don't understand the difference between Platonic and Aristotelian dialectic, or why we shouldn't value the logical system of the latter more than what's in this treatise.

Notes on I.3:
>One should search for a demonstration of divinity such that the demonstration itself deifies.
"The end is not to be sinless, but to be a god."
>There are chiefly two methods for this.
The first is for those who have risen to the intelligible world from here below. The other for those who have reached their before and have already taken root there.
>We will focus on the first here. There are three paths to reach the intelligible world for such a man.
Namely the path of the philosopher, of the musician, and of the lover.
>The musician allows himself to be easily moved by beauty; but he is not able to himself achieve the intuition of the beautiful.
He is dependent on the stimulation of external impressions. He is what we call the sensitive soul; and he moves after the beauty of the voice and harmony.
>From these purely sensual intonations he eventually comes to distinguish form from matter, and to contemplate beauty existent in their proportions.
From this he is lead to philosophy by arguments (dialectics) that lead him to recognise truths he possessed instinctively.
>The musician can then rise to the rank of the lover. The lover has some innate reminiscence of the beautiful.
He must, by reason, embrace all bodies that reveal beauty; showing him what is identical in all, informing him that it is something external, that exists in even higher degree in objects of another, higher, nature.
>He will be shown that beauty is found in the arts, the sciences, the virtues, all of which are suitable means toward the discovery of a taste of the incorporeal.
From this he will see that beauty is one, and he will be shown the element which in every object constitutes beauty.
>From virtues he will be led to progress to intelligence and essence; from here he will have nothing more to do but progress towards the supreme goal, that of the philosopher.
The philosopher is naturally disposed to rise to the intelligible world. He needs not learn to disengage himself from sense-objects as other men do; he is born on light wings.
>His only uncertainty will be the road to follow: he needs a guide.
For this purpose he will apply himself to mathematics; and following this he will be taught dialectics, which will perfect him.

>Dialectics is a science which makes us capable of reasoning about each thing.
To identify and isolate each thing from others, in what it resembles, whether it is one or many, whether it is being; as well as how many beings there, and which contain nonentity instead of veritable essence.
>Dialectics is above opinion. It is established in the intelligible world and from there concentrates its attention on this world.
It saves our soul from deceit. It makes use of the Platonic method of division to discern ideas, to define each object, to rise to the several kinds of essences as Plato thought.
>After going through the domain of the intelligible, dialectics reverses, turning to the very Principle from whence it first started out. It is only here that it can find rest.
This is its arrival at unity, its fugue from multiplicity.
>Logic is an art subordinate to dialectics just as writing is subordinate to discursive thought.
Dialectics is the noblest use of our faculties; and it is the highest part of philosophy. It is not, as Aristotle thought, merely an instrument for philosophy, nor, as Epicurus thought, made up of pure speculations and abstract rules.
>Error and sophism in dialectics is produced by foreign principle.
Dialectics, however, does not care for propositions which seem only mere groupings of letters to it; but because it knows the truth, it also understands propositions.
>Physics, ethics, and the other branches of philosophy are crowned by dialectics.
Prudence, which is the most universal application of wisdom, is under a general and immaterial form furnished with its principles by dialectics.
>Without dialectics lower knowledge would be imperfect.
Though the true sage no longer needs these inferior things, he would never have become such without them; the other arts precede dialectics, and they progress through dialectics.
>Just as the possessor of natural virtues may, through the use of wisdom, rise to perfect virtues.
Wisdom is the central and perfecting principle of morals, dialectics of knowledge.

>>21511490
I wrote a little about it here >>21511744

>>21511744
>>21511749
Oh, it's like the stoic sage concept except not materialist, instead of Aristotle's idea of exploring the world through sense perception to receive knowledge. It reminds me of Theaetetus.

>>21511744
Checked. Thanks for posting your notes. Ive been taking some as well

>>21511187
Collective consciousness and collective unconscious are not the same thing. I don't think the latter is intelligible at all and I don't mean the former in any Jungian sense what so ever.

>>21510355
I have been off the schizo-meter from the start; I have only agreed with Plotinus because by chance he utters the truth as I see it. I don't mean to disagree, but I suppose it is inevitable given that I don't believe in Monism. Perhaps I believe in the Triad: Good, Evil and Neutral. Maybe there is a fourth power, but I've made no such discovery.
>But nobody would claim that [Self Control] is a neutral thing, [Self Control] is a virtue
I'm claiming it, and my interest in philosophy lies in thinking for myself. If they are claiming Self Control a virtue then I hope it is convincing against rebuttal.
I won't quibble much longer since I am derailing the thread, but I am not believing that Good Beings may cause Evil Beings. If it were otherwise, then the Divine may also cause Evil.

>>21512443
Fair enough. To part with the subject I'll just offer you my opinion about evil (it's seems to me to be sort of basic Aristotelian but whatever): it's just a function of people acting viciously towards each other. Greed, anger, manipulation etc that's all evil is. Anyway, good luck on the schizometer and remember
>meds.

>>21512326
It's almost a waste of time not to take notes with this work. There are 54 treatises and they're a lot more systematic than they seem at first glance.

>>21499617
>Existences are, as it were, Matter to it, or at least it proceeds methodically towards Existences, and possesses itself, at the one stop, of the notions and of the realities.

Plotinus seems to ride the line between Plato and Aristotle's metaphysics. On one hand, Platonic concepts of the Good and forms are central to Plotinus' thinking, but here he seems to endorse final causality. Plato believed the forms to be entirely inaccessible except through imperfect copies found in our ideas; Aristotle famously argued that a Form could only exist materially. I might be misreading, but Plotinus seems to think that the form come somehow "posses" matter in an attempt to solve Plato and Aristotle's central disagreement.

This relates to yesterday's reading and the idea that orienting your soul correctly-- i.e. living in alignment with the "Ideal-Form" of virtue-- brings into existence the immaterial form.

>>21510002
Just read it. I like how it expounds on the Pagan morality inherent in Plotinus and links it with the mystic experience.

>>21499909
lmao Proclus was crazy about vegetarianism also. Even his friends thought he was weird.

Finally, found a decent epub of MacKenna's translation that included Porphyry's biography from Delphi's collection.

>>21513730
I could have told you that. LibGen, right?

>>21513734
Yeah, took a little bit since it didn't include the translators among its authors.

I.4 - "On True Happiness (Well Being)" 12/1

let's see

>>21504781
Nah, left one is better, you are just dumb.

My car got towed, how would Plotinus tell me to respond to this?

>>21515948
>"It serves to the integrity of your being. While the presence of the contrariness tends against your Being or complicates the Term: it is not that the Sage can be so easily deprived of the Term achieved (true happiness or felicity) but simply that he that holds the highest good desires to have that alone, not something else at the same time, something which, though it cannot banish The Good by its incoming, does yet take place by its side. If in any case the man that has attained felicity meets some turn of fortune that he would not have chosen, there is not the slightest lessening of his happiness for that."
Anon just be a sage about it and realize they may be able to tow your car, but they cannot tow away the True Happiness that The Divine has given you

>>21515948
Plotinus would say ain't no thang manz can do if dat shitz already been towed. Tha towin service numba be usually in tha nearby store or on a pole, dat shit'll be like 300$ pay dat shit soona than lata so they don't charge yo mo' fees nigguh LMAOOOOO fr doe ong.

>mfw rendered unconscious by magic crafts
>mfw my daughters are raped
>mfw all my slaves die
Yup, still happy

>he did not desire any birthday sacrifice or feast; yet he himself sacrificed on the traditional birthdays of Plato and of Socrates, afterwards giving a banquet at which every member of the circle who was able was expected to deliver an address.
Since we don't know either of their birthdays, we could use the day of Socrates' death, which is about February 15th, to mark the occasion.

>In the virtuous man happiness is different to a sensuous kind.
>It is in the higher part of the soul. Any suffering is also here, therefore it is detached from the physical.
>This happiness, to Plotinus, is actualised wisdom.
>It is achieved by establishing a spiritual preponderance.
>And we don't lose it when unconscious, e.g. asleep, because we ourselves are actualisations of intelligence (Nous).
Is this right?

Retard from earlier here, bumping the thread so it doesn't die. I'll catch up to the latest tractate tomorrow and post my thoughts.

>>21516552
I'll pay attention to this post when I finished reading. I'm about halfway so far but one thing I can say is Plotinus doesn't think happiness is exclusive to those who are in touch with reason/dialectic/philosophy. He argues pretty outstandingly against the (Plato's) view that only philosophers are truly happy.

Yall Bout TO SEe Da Next Big Thing In Philosophy Plotinus We Aint Never Seen A Nigga Like Dis Before
>>21508769
1.3
I didn't take notes for 1.2 :-(

The Good/Primal Principle/Term is the end of Life's purpose, and one must be initiated into figuring out that they need to pursue it
3 classes of temperament
- metaphysician
- lover
- musician
-- only the last two need additional guidance to enter the path toward the Term, metaphysician's temperament does it instinctively

Two stages toward the Term, lower and Intellectual

Musician
- drawn by beauty
- external things
- measure and shapely pattern
- design
----> he must be shown the Beauty of Philosophy

Lover
- similar to musician, but for immaterialities
- He must recognize the beauty in art, science and virtue
----> From the virtues he should be led to the Intellectual Principle

Metaphysician
- only needs a guide
- he learns math easily, and does so to develop the skill of abstract thinking
- predisposed to understanding morality
- after being in touch with math, sciences, he should learn Dialectic

Dialectic concerns what is Good and not-Good, as well as all the particulars of each
- it can learn everything about Ideal Forms, Authentic-Existence, and Categories-of-Being
- it creates sciences from it's findings
- Dialectic knows propositions, preparations of the Couplement, truth and falsity, uses SPs to falsify, and leaves the "precisions of process to what other science may care for such exercises". Seems sympathetic to Aristotle.
- Dialectic <----------->Arithmetic

You can only master Dialectic if you are in touch with lower virtues
- both then are mastered together

>>21518001
1.4 Happiness

Happiness is available to animals and plants

pleasure is a State
only Reason can judge a state's value, and is the cause of well-being

The reasonless may possess happiness as long as nature supplies their wants

Reason isn't required for happiness or what one first needs for it
- Those that think otherwise (Plato) are just of that class of temperament (metaphysician) which prioritizes it for their happiness

Happiness belongs to a being that lives fully. When one commands life of sensation and Reason, he has the perfect life

Man (The Proficient) has the Good when he stops seeking since he has the best within him
- health and freedom from pain are necessity, not happiness
- don't need them for happiness either, though it makes the Term less complicated
- once you are a Proficient, the means of happiness is within, "nothing is good that lies outside him"
- doesn't get pleasure from sensuality
- when a Proficient gets old, health and freedom from pain become even less important than ever before
- exclusive rules for happiness if you are wise

--
Happiness for Plotinus sometimes seems to be peace with the universe or existential dread, since misfortune/torture/death of loved ones etc. don't seem to be a problem. This is at least the case when you are a "Proficient".
Happiness also doesn't seem to be the goal of at least human life for Plotinus, but rather becoming a master of Intellection and the lower virtues, no matter who you are.

>>21518066
>Happiness also doesn't seem to be the goal of at least human life for Plotinus, but rather becoming a master of Intellection and the lower virtues, no matter who you are.
Though it's also worth saying that he wrote that someone has happiness if they are the latter.
So while someone can be happy without the philosophy parts, it seems like he thinks the best is when someone can fully navigate the realms of sensuality and reason, and who by virtue of this now necessarily has the Good, and can only find happiness from within.

>>21518001
feet

This thread is like starting on a farm on the Russian steppe during the middle ages. Like we didn't even try to hide it in a forest clearing, it's just directly on the Volga; groypers from Twitter and Discord are going to come down upon it if it starts bearing fruit, you can even still see the scorch marks on the ground from last time.

>>21519276
>if it starts bearing fruit
What do you mean?

>>21499617
should we make a neoplatonist discord?

>>21519343
If the threads still doing okay in like a week, maybe.
>>21519334
Like if it has flourishing discussion/participation

>>21499799
Congrats, you are intelligent. People like you are very rare here.

>>21519343
>Discord.

>>21518066
1.5 Time and Happiness

Very short this time
--
Does happiness increase with Time?
-> no
- true happiness is an unchanging state, you aren't happier through adding all the time in which you are happy
- ontology vs. telos

Some past experiences have advantages to maintain happiness
- Memory of formerly attained wisdom and virtue
- Memories of pleasure, to reassure the Proficient that he doesn't have to "roam far and wide" for experiences that are nothing to do with his inner happiness

To put Happiness in actions is to put it in things that are outside virtue and the Soul

(paraphrasing) "The Soul's expression in wisdom, a contemplative operation within itself, alone is Happiness,"
--
Seems to be an afterthought of the previous chapter. This tells me Plotinus was confident in what he wrote, since this kind of feels like quibbling.

>>21519276
>>21519343
I don't know what a groyper is and I don't like discord. People always start talking about going to the grocery store and what porn they like -- not the actions of a happy man!

>>21499617
The way you cropped that image so the sides of the circle are cutoff really activates my autism.

So what Plotinus is saying about happiness is essentially that by refining ourselves to become mirrors for the Intellect-Principal and the Rational above the Soul (which is in turn above the lower-soul/body), we can reflect the highest Good which is independent of time and all else, thus becoming as it is and being happy regardless of the conditions which will afflict our lower souls, such as grief, hunger, and pain?

>>21499617
Notes I took this morning on today's Tractate:
>There are multiple forms of happiness.
>These are often conflated with fleeting pleasures. But a "true happiness", the felicity discussed in the last tractate, is something that, in it's most exhalted state, endures and is sustained within.
>Though dearth and abundances of fortune befall us in all our time alive, there is an always present chance to foster a sober, lucid and un-moved state of existence, in which regardless of the aggavations of baser desires or frustrations, or the alluring calls of bliss or enraptured "manic" emotive phases, *we* are always present, aware, and ready to take in what knowledge from all these myraid human experiences can offer us, to further aid the distillation and crystallization of a higher sort of wisom.
>iMany find it deceptively easier to fall prey to the immediate attainment of desires and pleasures, rather than stopping to breathe, and using the innate instellect, sorting between these cheaper thrills with a more steady and carefully cultivated happiness which, spiritually and psychologically, is substantially more rewarding and fulfilling than the endless circuit of chasing unstable and sometimes extremely destructive passions and pleasures.
>This true happiness Plotinus refers to is unmoved, resolute and unwavering.
>And the deeds and actions done by one in this state of higher felicity is not simply characteriezed as "good" because of the deeds themselves, but because the unwavering engine of the higher and more substantive happiness which sits always in the sage's heart.

>>21521019
*many, intellect.

>>21520583
Sounds about right to me.

>>21520583
Sometimes he seems to say it, but at the beginning he has this:
"we must allow Happiness to animals from the moment of their attaining this Ultimate...making it over...even to the vilest of them and not withholding it even from the plants, living they too and having a life unfolding to a Term"

Then he argues...
"Those that deny the happy life to the plants on the ground that they lack sensation are really denying it to all living things"

I think he's just entertaining these ideas and rejecting them later. He seems to state someone needs sensation and reason to really be happy, but only because this person experienced everything about the world of sensation, and realizes they're happier without chasing material pleasures. So it's pretty similar to Plato, but Plato would skip the whole pleasure seeking completely.

>>21521119
Yeah no at the end of the first section he seems to unilaterally state that plants and animals can have "the good of life" whether that is to live according to a purpose (teleology), for inner-peace (ontology) or for pleasure. That seems to conflict with him saying that reason is required unless it's just humans that need it.

*deontology

>>21520583
>>21521161
>>21521119
This idea for the good life for plants and animals is nothing more than Aristotelian ideas of final causality applied to the true 'purpose' of these things. I.e. a seed is supposed to become a tree, and a tree is supposed to stay healthy, strong etc.

Because animals only have the lower-soul (as laid out in the 2nd treatise), they cannot reflect the highest Good. Only a shadow, which in this case is fulfilling the purpose as a species and staying away from sickness or danger.

I think >>21520583 analysis is correct. It's interesting he seems to synthesize Plato's and Aristotle's disagreemnt about the forms. In some since, the act of reflecting the highest Good wills a part of the immaterial form into existence; refining ourselves to act in alignment of the highest good therefore brings a reflection of the form into existence.

Best part

>>21521745
>the life of authentic-existence is measurable not by time but by eternity
What did he mean by this?

>>21522611
This was the part I struggled with too so here's my interpretation, not sure if it's perfect but whatever:
I think Mackenna here translates what Guthrie calls "the Good life," i.e. the idea, which is eternal, as authentic-existence. The Good life, by process of elimination, is that life which is proper to Essence in itself. By abstracting permanence from eternity and appropriating it, time destroys eternity. Happiness consists in partaking of the Good life which is proper to Essence (in itself), therefore it does not exist in time proper, but must instead have as a measure "eternity itself, a principle which admits neither increase nor diminution, whose nature it is to be indivisible." This ties in with the rest of the tractate where he expounds on why happiness does not increase with time.

>>21522897
>By abstracting permanence from eternity and appropriating it, time destroys eternity
Did you mean to type 'eternity destroys times' at the end there, or is it correct as is? I agree with the rest, but this part seems inconsistent.

>>21522925
Time destroys eternity. You choose the shadow for the thing.

>>21522969
So inside the decay of time our only refuge is union with eternity? And this union is effected by a mental/spiritual/rational "movement" or operation of the soul?

>>21523362
That is precisely what I believe the essence of neoplatonism is. A dharmic exegesis of Plato that arose from the dialectic between the mystery schools of the late Greco-Roman world and the Near East. I would love to hear any alternative views anons have.

Uhmmm no thanks. Plotinus was a) a racist, b) a fascist, and c) a straight cis white male, d) a delusional schizophrenic who needed meds because he believed in faries and ghosts and stuff.

>>21523417
one of us one of us one of us

>>21523402
Yeah. Seems like a form of jhana-yoga essentially. Union or salvation via knowledge. The type of knowledge is quite peculiar though, unique amongst all types of knowledge.

>>21509923
and once you grow up, Christianity is here for you

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts about On Beauty.

>>21520308
1.6 Beauty

--
Beauty is mostly concerned with sight, but also addresses sound

There is material beauty and higher beauty of the Intellect
Higher beauty may concern conduct of life, actions and character

Compounds and Symmetry may be Beauty, but these two are rather entailed from a more primal Principle

Beauty comes by communion with Ideal Forms
- harmonious coherence
- the Idea is a Unity

An ugly thing is something not mastered by pattern, isolated from Divine-Thought

Fire is the most beautiful material form
- it is primal in that it admits no external bodies to it, but penetrates all the others
- primal color

As blind people can't speak about what is a beautiful sight, those without care for noble conduct, learning, virtue, the Face of Justice and Moral-Wisdom can't speak for higher Beauty either

Only those who know the Soul's sight can see higher beauty

Those who love the Beauty of things outside SPs want to live within the veritable self
- loftiness of spirit
- righteousness of life
- disciplined purity
- courage of the majestic face
- gravity
- modesty that is fearless, tranquil and passionless
- light of godlike Intellection
-> Why is this the case?
- They have the reality of being
-> Comparing them with Ugly Souls will help to distinguish them

Ugly Souls (pg. 60)
- dissolute, unrighteous
- teeming with all the lusts
- torn by internal discord
- fearful and cowardly
- petty and envious
- undeveloped capacity to think
- thinks only of what is perishable
- perverse in all its impulses
- unclean, loves unclean pleasures
- living for bodily sensation and delighting in its deformity
- pays attention only to the outer, the lower, and the dark
- becomes ugly by something alien to it

>>21525280
Moral discipline, courage, virtue, and Wisdom, all is a purification
- analogous to gold, which degrades when mixed as an aggregate mineral

All that proceeds from Intellection are the Soul's Beauty

The beauty in things of a lower order
- actions and pursuits
- comes by operation of the shaping Soul which authors the beauty found in the world of sense perceptions
- this Soul (I assume the lesser Soul) is a fragment of Primal Beauty

Ugliness is the primal evil, and contrary to those that approach the Holy Celebrations of the Mysteries who will behold the God in the solitude of himself
- Solitary dwelling Existence/The First/Beauty/The Good/Authentic-Existents/Existence/the Apart/the Unmingled/the Pure/that from Which all things depend, for Which all look and live and act and know/the Source of Life, Intellection and Being/the Choragus of all Existence/the Self-Intent that ever gives forth and never takes/the absolute, primal, Intellective-Being/This

Those who know Beauty love it, and these lovers are made worth loving by it

It is worth trading sovereignty of kingdoms and command over earth, water and sky to know true beauty
- otherwise one has commerce only with shadows
- Similar to Odysseus fleeing Calypso/Circe, who offer the totality of lower (sensual) pleasures in exchange for all the higher ones

How to train one's Soul to know Beauty
- remark noble pursuits
- find works of beauty by men known for their goodness, not by the mere labour/skill of the arts
- search the souls of those who shaped beautiful forms

Compare yourself to those with a virtuous soul, and if you don't feel beautiful, chisel yourself like a statue
- cut what is excessive
- straighten what is crooked
- make light what is overcast
- shine with the godlike splendour of virtue

This beauty is immeasurable by space, circumscribed form, or quantity

If you are impure, weak or cowardly you can't understand Beauty
--
What are the "Mysteries" he is referring to? My assumption is Homer.

Also there is so much Plato-wank and navel gazing in this section. It seems like all one has to do is acquire knowledge of the Good, and they will naturally just become beautiful and understand it as a result. His advice to learn how to know beauty also seems to be an ad populum.
For the few specific things like not being cowardly or weak, I can understand, but there's nothing specific enough which rules out the context of these relative terms. I wish he would have been more specific about what being beautiful is because the section seems mostly aimed at making the connection between beauty and the Good, and I think that connection would only be strengthened by attempting to describe as such.

>>21525307
>Those who know Beauty love it, and these lovers are made worth loving by it
The problem I see with this is that most people seem to love what it ugly these days. I don't disagree though.
>mysteries
Like the mystery cult of Eleusis etc.
>find works of beauty by men known for their goodness, not by the mere labour/skill of the arts
This is really insightful. I think it's why I never really found the Sistine chapel all that compelling. Apparently Michaelangelo was quite a, let us say jagged character.

>>21525280
Yeah I kind of felt like this tractate was just adding more onto earlier ones but the ending paragraph kinda hit a certain way
>"Therefore the Soul must be trained-to the habit of remarking, first, all noble pursuits, then the works of beauty produced not by the labour of the arts but by the virtue of men known for their goodness: lastly, you must search the souls of those that have shaped these beautiful forms."
>But how are you to see into a virtuous soul and know its loveliness?"
>"Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: He cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also: Cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labour to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiselling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendour of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine."

>>21526338
>>Cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked, bring light to all that is overcast, labour to make all one glow of beauty and never cease chiselling your statue, until there shall shine out on you from it the godlike splendour of virtue, until you shall see the perfect goodness surely established in the stainless shrine."
So based desu. My body is a temple.
>A temple, indeed, should be adorned with gifts, but the soul with disciplines.
- Iamblichus

Its a pretty rough argument.
>you don't know anything about beauty if you aren't beautiful
>to understand beauty, identify those that made beautiful works
>for those who made beautiful works, only the ones known for their goodness count
I think he at least has things like pic related in mind, since that style was popular then.
The section also reminded me of scientific theory, and how simplicity/beauty/symmetry are all values used (by physicists especially) by guys like Einstein to make them. I'll have to dig up some papers to say more but I think Steven Weinberg had a bit on it called "Dreams of a Final Theory".
>>21525907
>Michaelangelo was a jagged character
Howso?

>>21526809
Moody, temperamental, blunt, didn't suffer fools, etc.

>1.6.9
>just B.E. yourself

>>21504781
Personally, I prefer Guthrie.

>>21527875
https://archive.org/details/enneads

I think to understand what Plotinus means by beauty you have to understand what exactly being is for him.

>>21528189
Who is this author? Why does it seem to me to make it harder to understand Plotinus?

>>21528259
What's hard about it?

>>21528286
Whose the author? It's verbiage. Why would I want to read this author's interpretation of Plotinus and not Plotinus himself? How does reading this author's interpretation of Plotinus enrich my interpretation of Plotinus rather than distort it?

>>21528395
It's from Eric Perl's Thinking Being. If you don't want to read other people's understanding of the work then what's the point of the thread? It's verbiage is quite simple and if your interpretation is tenuous enough to be distorted by reading secondary then your interpretation is likely wrong.

>>21528453
Its a hard read, but I can appreciate that it kind of cuts the fat out of the sort of poetical stuff about the Good and goes straight at the structural components.

Would Plotinus have approved of physical exercise?

>>21528453
>read muh academics goy don't read yourself

>>21528824
Where did I say not to read yourself?
>>21528817
Only if it serves some purpose beyond vanity.

>>21525280
>>21525307
1.7 The Primal Good and Secondary Forms of Good
IP = Intellectual-Principle
..
For the Soul, the Good is its own natural Act

To possess the Absolute Good, other beings may either become like It or direct the Act of their being to It

The Good is the first Cause of all Act

The Good doesn't act on other entities, others must act towards this source and cause

The Good is above Being, Act, IP, Intellection
- like a circle's center, or the sun's light

To align toward the Good, the soulless must move toward Soul, the Soul toward Good

Everything has some Good
- certain degree of unity/Existence/Form as images
- the Soul has the Good by degree of it's orientation toward the IP
- where there is life with intellection, one has doubly contact with the Good

Death isn't evil
- for something to be evil it must have a subject (existence?)

after death, the Soul is either free to ply its own Act, joined with the All-Soul, or punished in the lower world

the Gods aren't evil

Evil only happens in life, so death is a greater good than life

the Soul can lose it's purity and become evil

Life is the partnership of body and Soul, Death is it's dissolution
- there's nothing good about this partnership, it's only good by virtue of dispelling evil
- this Couplement is evil in itself
- the Soul attains Good by using Virtue to achieve disembodiment/separation with the body
..
Did Plotinus have a conception of the solar system? Is that why did he compares the sun to the center of a revolving circle?

>>21528817
After reading so far, only enough so that you understand it, and after that, only if it's a necessary for possession of the Good. Plotinus hasn't tried to explain what that is so far but I know Plato gives a full account of it in the Republic, and Plotinus definitely has his works in mind when he writes. However, he seems to have disdain the body, and I've heard his later writings are more ascetic.
Actually the one for today was pretty life-denying, Evil and Suicide are up next though so that will be interesting.

>>21529110
>his later writings are more ascetic
>Actually the one for today was pretty life-denying, Evil and Suicide are up next though so that will be interesting.
The one for today is actually the last tractate chronologically. They are not numbered in the order they written.
Thanks for these write-ups btw.

>>21529176
Ooh, I see. I guess it's true then.
>Thanks for these write-ups btw.
No problem.

Bump

Does anyone know what book Plotinus is quoting when he says: >"But, in the expression "this place" must be taken to mean the All, how explain the words 'Mortal Nature'?"
>"The answer is in the passage [in which the Father of Gods addresses the Divinities of the lower sphere], "Since you possess only a derivative being, you are not immortals...but by my power you shall escape dissolution."
?

>>21528453
Frankly so far I've found the thread more clarifying than this stuff.
Academics have a way of making philosophy an academic exercise rather than an elaboration of a world view or process of initiation via understanding.

>>21529110
Yeah. Thanks for the notes.
I flatly don't think I agree that Couplement is evil itself. Not saying I disagree with your notes but with Plotinus. I think it's just evident that evil is something men do. Sure it might have its cause in the couplement but it is activity based on that not that itself.

>>21528817
>Never cease chiselling your statue
Frankly if I can't exercise and adhere to the Plotonian system them I'd rather not be a Plotonian. Not that I'm all that good at it, but I want my body to be a temple for and a reflection of the divinity within me and that I'm patterned of. I understand that the soul is my true essence, but if That is the true Good, I want to honor it with a beautiful temple.

Anyone into Hermeticism? There were neo-Platonists who were also Hermeticists, like Synesius. The Traditions fit together well enough. Evola was into both.

>>21531505
It makes sense that the philosophy of Egyptian priests (Hermeticism) is compatible with Platonism as the very roots of Platonism tracing back through Pythagoras and Orpheus are largely Egyptian.

Too bad he's just another confused annihilationist.

>>21528395
It's not verbiage at all. You're a fucking retard.

>>21504425
Eternity Is Aeviternity Is not.
if you want to be more technical, it is even wrong to speak of the Infinite as "completion" because "completion" is of something, and of something the Infinite which is Unlimited cannot be, but "ofness" is a determination meaning a Limitation proper to the temporal Existence, to the Unity being firstly determined, whereas, Being incomprehensible and above (not to imply the correlate of below), the and ineffable is not modal and encompassing. Being is Unmanifest, it is Eternal. Without parts and therefore without "completion."

>>21531738
The Ancient Egyptian knowledge regarding subtle bodies is also similar to Hermetic Alchemy. Hermeticism, according to Guénon and other experts, originally came from Egypt. Alchemy -> al-kemia (Arabic in form) -> kemit, Greek for "black earth", an old/esoteric meaning for Egypt.

>>21531776
It is.

>>21499617
Recommended translation?

>>21532915
MacKenna

>>21529110
1.8 Evil

The Soul, the IP, Evil, Life, Existence, and Intellective-Act are all Ideal Forms

2. The Good is beyond conception (Thing-In-Itself?)
- particulars are the IP
- the IP possess each particular not by "having" but Is each of it's participants

3 rings, The Good in the middle, then IP, then the Soul

3. Evil is in touch with Non-Being, or is a mode of it, or is in it's realm

Non-Being is an image of Being, or worse, such as:
- sensible universe
- accident of sense
- source of the sense world

Absolute Evil is the source/hypostasis of Evil

4. The bodily Kind which takes in Matter is Evil
- bodily form is untrue
- hinders the Soul in it's proper Act

Soul is evil if it has:
- licentiousness, cowardicess, unmeasure, excess
- values things by like or dislike, rather than by good or evil

Process belongs to Matter
- Matter likens itself to whatever comes in touch with it

The perfect Soul turns away from Matter
- only the IP determines
- fallen Souls are mere images of it

5. Is Evil just the lack of Good?
Evil is in absolute lack
- Matter is an Evil, since it is void of Good in itself
- Some lack of Good isn't Evil

Sickness, ugliness, and poverty are Evil
- sickness is excess or defect of the body
- ugliness is matter not mastered by Ideal Form
- poverty is lack of goods associated with Matter

Men who are evil are such against their will
- Evil existed before us, as Non-Being

6. How does evil exist if it is Non-Being?
Shouldn't we flee Earthly life?
- no, just vice
- Evil is a necessity since it is contrary to Good and you can't have one without the other, and neither can be destroyed alone

How can there be a contrary to Good if the World Soul has no qualities?
- dualism doesn't apply to it

Dualism doesn't apply to particular existences, only qualities

Good and Evil are the most violent dyad because there is nothing in common with them

7 The All <---> Matter
Good <---> Evil

The nature of the Cosmos is a blend from the IP and Necessity
- Matter also called "The Ancient Kind"
- Evil is the Last, Good is the First

8. "neither ignorance nor wicked desire arise in Matter" or "guns don't kill people"
But,
- the quality doesn't act apart from Matter
- qualities would be different outside Matter
- "Fire doesn't burn"

What Idea or Good enters Matter ceases to be itself
- formlessness, shapelessness, excess, defect, belong to Matter, and turn Good Forms to Evil
- The Cause of Evil is Matter

Can't the Idea conquor Matter?
- ideas are only pure by avoidance of Matter

The darkness -> primary (Evil, Good)
the darkened -> secondary (Vice, Virtue)

9 Vices
utter viciousness
- partial goodness in all vices
- The Formless = Matter
- Matter is an IP, and one must understand Matter by fully immersing themselves with it

10. Matter has a nature
- It is a substratum for qualities of it's nature
- Give it Quality and it would be a Kind contary to Form

This is interesting. I am re-reading thr book of Enoch and theres this section in Chapter 15, that sounds Plotinian, but predates Plotinus by some 200 years: "8: And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits on the earth.
9: And shall live on the earth. Evil spirits have come out from their bodies because they are born from men amd from the holy Watchers; their beginning is of primal origin."
The idea of matter is of evil and primal origin, where did that itself originate? Or, did Plotinus draw from other sources besides Plato? The book of Enoch in amd of itself parallels the story of Prometheus; Prometheus and the watchers themselves both said to be held for 10,000 years imprisoned. I wonder if there were older myths that got diffused into different peoples mythologies but now seem separate because of the cultures

>>21533919

11. The Soul Produces vice through lack of Good, vice is not the lack itself
- The Soul is not wholly apart from the Good

12. If Vice and Evil were a partial negation of goods, then you couldn't blend Evil and Good
13. Vice and Evil are more than occasions of evil. Wehn a Soul attains vice there is some good, but Evil kills the Soul completely and twofold. While the body is sunk in matter, the Soul will leave the body to see a nether world, such as Hades is described, and sleep there (dreams?).

14 Viciousness
- unstable
- swept by illness
- quickly stirred by appetite
- headlong to anger
- hasty to compromise
- easily yields to obscure imaginations
- weak, blown about by every breeze, burns away by every heat
Weakness in the Soul is created by it's disengagement and/or being bound to/caused by Matter

15 The only worthy desire is the one that aspires toward the IP
Evil may appear beautiful, like a bound captive, and is hidden by necessity to avoid the God's wrath or not to irritate people
..
"Universe is chaotic and in flux" similar to Heraclitus?
Is atman Brahman for Plotinus?
Does the blending of Good and Evil create "Kinds"?
I think vicousness is the first vice that comes to mind for him due to the time period, since their northern neighbors included utterly savage Dacian cannibals that never wrote or read anything.
Lots of counter arguments in this one. I suppose he was arguing with early Jews/Christians in his day since the problem of evil was big for him.

>>21533932
>The idea of matter is of evil and primal origin, where did that itself originate?
It may just be instinct to think this, but I'd love to know if it came from the Vedas/Hinduism, or asceticism in general. Similar to what this poster said >>21530940 I don't think the mind should reject worldly things. Iamblichus has it the opposite way and champions the good of the "Couplement". If what Plotinus means is to stress self-control, or for belief/worldview/mind not to be overwhelmed by bodily sensation but to max out virtue to control it, that's great.
He does claim that to possess the Good someone needs to master the lower and higher Soul (I think in 1.3, but he could just be talking about Dialectic), which would include the experiencing of lots of different bodily experiences and understanding them. In 1.8.8 he explicitly has "The Idea conquering Matter" line of thought more or less thrown out in favor of avoiding matter as much as possible, but he has an aside to it which points out that some "bodily habit" can fully inhibit choice/balance. Personally I think his other tendency to argue how body and mind need to support each other to fully develop is more attractive for actual ethical content.

>>21533990
I am mostly of the same mind. I find his asceticism to be somewhat too extreme, as to me, like you pointed out, it makes more sense to not lose sight of your connection to The Good but to also make your body as healthy as possible
and not to shy away from experiences, but self control and the conscious deliberation to not partake in vices and incontinency makes sense

If only some person or group had saved something from Egyptian philosophers or a bible/main work for their religion. No one can explain how they built their pyramids and all the Greek philosophers studied under them, I think western canon would have been remarkably different if we did.

>>21531875
It is believed that the Late Platonists inherited their dogmas regarding the psychic vehicle from the mystery cult of Isis.

>>21533919
>Men who are evil are such against their will
I... what? Doesn't that just absolve all responsibility though?

>>21533932
>wonder if there were older myths that got diffused into different peoples mythologies but now seem separate because of the cultures
Have you not heard of proto-indo-European mythology? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology

>>21535303
Well, there's nothing complete or accurate about these notes. I scribble what I found important for the day without much proof-reading. I don't know what Plotinus has to say about that, but I will try to argue the opposite of what you're saying from his position.
From the schema I've come to understand so far, all idea is thought good, and matter evil ("Essential Fire is good, but things burning can be bad"). So if a person fully masters the Intellective-Principle, there is no room for evil. If a person is doing evil, it's because part of them is in Non-Being, or thoughtless Matter, which has nothing to do with their thoughts or intentions, since those are part of the Good.
A child who steals money from Aristotle thinking it's ok should be dealt with in a moral way where the behavior doesn't continue. We don't attribute agency to him since he doesn't know better, but he still might be chastised or punished. Plotinus seems to extend that rule to everyone, that in sum total, people who do evil always just don't know any better.

There is still responsibility Plotinus seems to assign everyone of trying to possess the Good, but punishment of an evil may instead be treated as whatever brings the evil to zero, or what balances it, prevents it's reoccurrence, or increases the thought associated with it and which necessarily will result in the opposite good.

A lot of early Christian scholarship equates evil as merely the lack/privation of goodness. I don't remember who. Plotinus seems to have this but with a source for evil, "Absolute Evil", which has at least less reality than the Good, since he calls it a substratum/hypostasis for evil. Matter is evil, and translated as "Non-Being", so unless there's some difficulty with the linguistic traditions or if everyone had an altered state of consciousness then vs. now, I don't comprehend why evilness can have a quality and act as a substratum while also being nothingness. Temporal space, I guess isn't nothingness by every quality, since it has the quality of space-time at least from our point of view.

>>21535312
I have, my negro. I have. But I guess I should clarify and ask if there is a book that goes in depth that explains connections between Indo European mythology and later greco-roman mythology. Also do you think that the Enochian tale is a later retelling of an older Indo European story or just a general event that happened that was witnessed or passed on to other cultures in general?

>>21535509
Okay. Yeah, this is what I thought. It sounds like its really just the old Socratic position of: "no one does evil willingly." Everyone wants to do good but they just lack knowledge of the true good. To do evil is to miss the mark.

>>21535722
Yeah. I think I agree with it also.

>>21535303
That's literally just Plato, no one does vice knowingly, but rather out of ignorance.

>>21536574
Your right. But surely in Plato the responsibility for ignorance leading to evil is on the ignorant person to learn? Although I suppose it could be the responsibility of the wise to teach couldn't it.

>>21533919
>>21533952
1.9 Suicide

You will not commit suicide unless you are taking something corporeal with you to some new place. (Egpyptians?)

Otherwise, if the dissolution of the body takes place, it's through the use of violence/passion/revolt/grief/anger, all of which are unlawful, to tear the Soul from it.

If you are losing your Reason, which may happen to the Proficient (though unlikely), then suicide is ok. It would be weird to use drugs to assist you.

>And if there is a period alotted to all by fate, to anticipate the hour could not be a happy act, unless, as we have indicated, under stern necessity.
(No idea what he's saying here. If society enters an apocalyptic hour/society makes it impossible to be happy?)

If life after death depends on your earth actions, it's not worth suiciding so long as there is hope to progress virtue/the Good.
..
That's the end of tractate one. Good job frens, 5 more to go.

>>21536941
I think two dialogues would to be referred to, the Apology, where Socrates argues that if he does wrong, it's out of ignorance and Mletus should instead teach him what's right, and the Laws, which seems to reflect on the likelihood of non-philosophers learning right from wrong with it's punitive legal code. Less capital punishment because of the responsibility of the wrongdoer, moreso for the stability of civic life.

Does Plotinus ever get into mathematics or arithmetic in his writings?

bump

>>21536941
Why does someone need to "take responsibility"?
>but then how do we decide to punish and reward?
Why do you need to decide? Why have categories like "guilty" or "innocent" at all? Why not just give things what they are due?

>>21539440
>Why not just give things what they are due?
Yeah. Hence the question: 'whose responsible for this?' Would it be better if I wrote 'assign responsibility'? I don't understand your objection.

>>21536898
Beautiful.

How many people are still reading?

>>21540567
Yeah. I read ahead before it started now I'm waiting for the group to catch up (II.4).

>>21540567
I went duck hunting and missed the past two readings but I'll catch up

>>21499617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

>>21540567
I'll catch up tomorrow or this weekend, I've been busy with work.

>>21540567
Skimming the second Ennead, so I am, just waiting for others if they need time to catch up

I don't understand where matter is supposed to come from if it is the first thing post chain of being.

>>21540618
>>21540828
>>21541156
>>21541747
Oh cool, didn't think it was going to last past a few days desu. Personally feel my reading fatigue building and when it reaches a climax it will start to get easier. Haven't read real philosophy in a while, its definitely easier on my sanity to do it with a group.

>>21542163
Matter is called the "Last" (1.8.7), I'm pretty sure it has the "least" amount of reality since they're just low level emanations of the "One". I found a diagram that kind of has this, but I don't know much which further details explanation/application of it.

>>21540567
i am

Bump

>>21537890
2.1 The Heavenly System

The ordered universe should be explained as more than the will of God
- it has existed forever and has had no beginning
- Will of God continuously reintroduces known forms in new substances to perpetuate the unity of Idea
Aristotle's Quintessence

Every living thing is a combination of Soul and body-kind
- Souls are eternal
- body is not
physical mass is always in flux, but self-contained in the cosmos (t. Heraclitus)

Celestial fire
- substance constituting the stars
- better than regular fire (t. Aristotle)
- fire is the only element of the celestials (some gods are made of fire)
- the Soul would still exist if the universe was annihilated

5. God made the celestial order
God made "the gods" who made living things on earth
- it is law that God's offspring are immortal
- God -> gods -> Soul -> souls -> animals

6. Timaeus
- claim: that the All consisted of earth and fire, and so too the stars
-- this is probably true
-- if air existed in the stars it must be continually be changing into fire (hydrogen->fire->helium)
- claim: two solid figures need two intermediaries for coherence
-- this isn't the case for earth and water since they don't need intermediaries
- claim: earth can't exist without water
-- how can there be earth if it's existence depends on water? This isn't true
- claim (still Timaeus): Earth needs fire to be visible
-- wrong, you only need light. We can see that snow hasn't melted despite being visible

Gold is created by becoming dense or consolidating itself
- Fire does the same thing to become the Soul

Plato: "The four elements enter the composition of every living thing"
- no, but we do see properties of each of these four elements, like the solidity of earth, incandescence of fire, air's "yielding softness".
..
Which "God" is he referring to in 5? I'm just assuming Chaos from Hesiod.

>>21526510
I miss /fitlit/ everyday bros.

Did everyone lose interest? If the threads last until Friday afternoon, Euro time, I was going to catch up and post my notes so far.

This section should be read with the astronomy of the time in mind, as they didn't believe in void and Plotinus states that heaven starts just after the moon.
>>21546016
>God -> gods -> Soul -> souls -> animals
My translation reads more like
>God -> heavenly parts
But also
>God -> gods -> (this step being an imitation of God -> heavenly parts) sublunary living beings
And that us sublunary living beings are made from worse bodies and in a worse location, and that our bodies are not mastered like they would be if another soul(? who) ruled over them directly. There's also a note that the major contributor to our mere existing is nature, but that the higher soul, through calculative reasoning, causes human flourishing.

>>21547015
It's been nearly a 300 post thread, I call it a success even if people are getting burned out.
I think the next thread should start with some recaps and Q&A

>>21547316
>the major contributor to our mere existing is nature
>heaven starts just after the moon
I think I missed that entirely. The other part of what you're saying seems to agree with what I remember reading
>they didn't believe in void
How do you mean void as different from 'Non-Being'?

And yeah the thread doesn't really cling to life but it's been a good run. Even when he writes something I have no reason to believe like the soul being made of consolidated fire I still enjoy the sense of history/mythology from him. Maybe if we get to 2.9 where he treats Gnosticism the thread will pick up more.

>>21547631
>How do you mean void as different from 'Non-Being'?
I don't remember it well but Aristotle definitely did not believe in void, which was a concept the atomists came up with to explain how their atoms could move and collide with one another. I don't know if Platonists would call this non-being or not. Here's a lecture I listened to years ago on the subject but don't really remember: https://historyofphilosophy.net/filling-gaps-brief-history-nothing

>>21547015
I got banned by the nigger jannies for 3 days so I kinda lost my flow. I'm waiting for Ennead III now as II is probably the least important.

>>21542163
I understand matter, hyle, is an expression of the indefinite dyad, pure unlimit, infinite formlessness. It isn't necessarily last or first. Take by analogy: Nous -> Soul -> Bodily Matter
then Being -> Nous -> Psychic Matter and One -> Limit -> Unlimited

>>21546016
>it has existed forever and has had no beginning
>- Will of God continuously reintroduces known forms in new substances to perpetuate the unity of Idea
This can be reconciled with the big bang if we take the latter as simply the reintroduction of matter into space I suppose no?

Yeah I anticipated there would be a lull while we went through this first part of the second Ennead because it's so antiquated.
>>21546151
I was on fit yesterday and someone asked for pic rel. Apparently it's a Pope Benedict quote. Definitely got a Plotonian edge to it.

>>21547812
What did you say to get banned lad? I got banned once for pic rel.

>>21547948
Made a thread with a meme image. Was on-topic but too low effort I guess. Somehow this is ok >>21547971 though
Also why would you get banned for that? Honestly these jannies deserve a pay cut.

>>21547948
St. Augustine became a janny

>>21548050
That sex thread was probably made by a jannie. Perhaps the same one who christian jimmies I rustled.

>>21548050
What are we not paying them for?

Let's put our heads together to come up with the OP text for the next thread.
I have a suggestion to expand the "break" period from 1/18 to this weekend. And on Monday we pick up with On Heaven. Seems like a decent amount of time for everyone still hanging on to catch up.

But if you have other ideas let's hear it.

I have no idea what he's trying to say in 2.3.3 And is the middle of the soul like the meat of a sphere?

>>21546016
2.2 The Heavenly Circuit

The heavenly circuit is an imitation of the intellectual principle

The Soul does not perform spatial movements
bodies have spatial movement, but are too hindered by matter to follow the celestial curving of the Soul
The Soul-body is "carried forward at rest"

Soul is omnipresent, incapable of division, and encompasses the heavens

The Soul moves like a curving circle
- God/the Godhead is in the center, but is not stationed

The center of lesser bodies are a 'point of place'

The stars have a spherical movement with the cosmos but also a revolution around their common centre

The Intellectual-Principle and the All has stationary movement, they turn upon themselves

>>21550170
I like the current pace, if I miss a day I probably will just skip that day's reading. Also the thread almost died last night, I woke up randomly and saw it at page 10 so I made this comment >>21549378
Is there a way to see catalog traffic over time? I feel like the board is busier than 2 weeks ago, though I try to avoid using it completely because there's too much shitposting. I wish we could petition for thread immortality or use a dead board like /xs/ desu.

Bump limit?

>>21551326
either that or someone saged it, I thought bump limit was 750