(((NEO)))PLATONISM GENERAL

[Anonymous No.14214493]

Thread to discuss and engage in dialectic regarding Presocratic, Pythagorean, Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian, and Neoplatonic philosophies and their many medieval, modern, and post-modern heirs...

(((Abrahamics))) and ((perennialists)) are tolerated, though urged to stay on topic.

REMEMBER: "Pneumatics" are Daemons purposed to challenge the soul to impede the ascension of the yet unworthy (being punished for past lives), Gnosticism is a lie, every soul is chosen, just not every life.

If anyone can find out whomever that girl whose linked vid got hid, that'd be nice.

>BASED Pierre Grimes, truly a modern Isidore!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Bh7VoDVxo

>orientalisms and (neo)platonic revivals in occidental history:
https://youtu.be/s2HCOuY-EiE

>free platonic writings online:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Taylor%2C%20Thomas%2C%201758-1835

[Anonymous No.14214496]

>>>14214050
>ontologically false to say a cat is a dog
No it isn't, because that has nothing to do with ontology, the statement doesn't make grammatically sense.
Neoplatonism, which has little to do with whatever the fuck you're talking about, is founded on derivation.

>Every thing productive of another is better than the nature of that which is produced.
>Every producing cause constitutes things similar to itself, prior to such as are dissimilar.
>Every progression is effected through a similitude of secondary to primary natures.
>Everything which is produced from a certain thing without a medium, abides in its producing cause, and proceeds from it.
>Every thing which proceeds from, another essentially, returns to that from which it proceeds.
>Every conversion or return is effected through the similitude of the things converted to that to which they are converted.
>Every thing caused abides in, proceeds from, and returns to, its cause.
Even if noetic matter isn't
>>>All things which in their participants have the relation of a subject proceed from more perfect and total causes.
>>For the causes of a greater number of effects are more powerful and total, and are nearer to The One, than the causes of fewer effects. But the natures which constitute the things which are antecedently the subjects of others {{not 'a subject' as in person, but something objectified by a subject}}, are the causes of a greater number of effects, constituting the properties or peculiarities prior to the presence of forms. And hence these among causes are more universal and perfect.
>Corollary.— From hence it is evident why matter which derives its subsistence from The One is of itself destitute of form: and why body, though it participates of being, is of itself destitute of soul. For matter, since it is the subject of all things, proceeds from the cause of all; but body, because it is the subject of animation, derives its subsistence from that which is more universal than soul, because it participates in a certain respect of being.

[Anonymous No.14214498]

>>14214493
what should i read to understand neo platonism? i've read plato and aristotle and i don't know where to go

[Anonymous No.14214511]

Alright I'be been waiting for a new thread.

Shorta new the to whole esoteric/out side of normal philosophies and religions.
I've read Guenon's The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times
Currently reading through Evola about to get to the Revolt Against the Modern world tragedy.
So I dove pretty hard into Perennialism but I'm still learning.

How is neo platonism different?

[Anonymous No.14214514]

>>14214493
>(((Abrahamics))) and ((perennialists))
can we just exclude these autists? nothing but a bunch of cringey shitposters

[Anonymous No.14214515]

Become Gnostic.

[Anonymous No.14214531]

>>14214498
I would recommend Proclus' Elements of Theology, but Dodds' translation is barely readable if you don't know any Greek, since his notes and commentary is full of untranslated Greek terms.

Plotinus' Enneads are the easiest to read primary source (least convoluted). But, Plotinus would put Hegel to shame in how poorly he wrote coherent sentences, so it is likely that Porphyry in having to revise almost everything Plotinus wrote (with his consent) that there were some misinterpretations, but these faults (like superficial contradictions) of the Enneads are obviously rooted in Porphyry and not Plotinus; and Porphyry was (though we should call him blessed) the least inspired Neoplatonic philosopher, any of his misinterpretations were not from malicious intent since we know he had many views different from those expressed in the Enneads.

There is pic related, everything by Dillon and Gerson is great.

[Philosophy is dead, long live (...) No.14215318]

>The post-structuralists thought they were destroying Platonism.
>What they failed to perceive is that deconstruction is rudimentary first-year Neoplatonic teaching.
https://philarchive.org/archive/HALOTP-2

Damascius' Problems and Solutions:
Hence, too, when we have grasped with the intellect everything that is in any way capable of being known or intuited up to the point of the One, we think (if we must attempt to express what cannot be expressed or to conceptualize that which eludes all thought) we still think it correct to posit that which does not coincide with anything and is not part of any system and indeed so transcendent that in truth it does not even exhibit the mark of transcendence. For the transcendent always transcends something and so is not entirely transcendent, because it is conditioned by a relationship with that which it transcends, and generally has a fixed place in the progression of a system. If, then, it is to subsist as truly transcendent, it must not even be postulated as transcendent. In fact, the name that most appropriately designates the transcendent does not name it correctly, since it [designates] something that is already co-coordinated within a system, so that one must at the same time deny it the name. But denial (apophasis) is itself a kind of discourse, and that about which the denial is made is the subject of the discourse, but the [Ineffable] is nothing at all, and therefore no denial can be made concerning it, since it is altogether outside the realm of language, and it is not knowable in any way at all, so that it is not even possible to deny the denial. Rather, the demonstration that reveals the [Ineffable] to us, about which we speak, consists in the complete overturning of discourse and thought. And what will turn out to be the limit of discourse, except silence that has no power to convey it, and the agreement to continue to know nothing about that which it is not permitted to enter into knowledge of, since it remains as the inaccessible?

[Anonymous No.14215332]

>>14214493
Oh shit I didn't expect Pierre to show up here. Based.

Daily reminder to all anons to read Edward Butler

[Anonymous No.14216108]

WE WUZ GODS AND SHIT

[Anonymous No.14216318]

I will speak for those entitled, close your doors, ye profane.

INEFFABLE, HIDDEN, BRILLIANT SCION, WHOSE MOTION IS WHIRRING, YOU SCATTERED THE DARK MIST THAT LAY BEFORE YOUR EYES AND, FLAPPING YOUR WINGS, YOU WHIRLED ABOUT, AND THROUGH THIS WORLD YOU BROUGHT PURE LIGHT

>BACCHUS I call, loud-sounding and divine,
>Fanatic God, a two-fold shape is thine:
>Thy various names and attributes I sing,
>O, first-born, thrice begotten, Bacchic king:
>Rural, ineffable, two-formed, obscure,
>Two-horned, with ivy crowned, euion, pure.
>Bull-faced, and martial, bearer of the vine,
>Endued with counsel prudent and divine:
>Triennial, whom the leaves of vines adorn,
>Of Jove and Proserpine, occultly born.
>Endued with counsel prudent and divine:
>Triennial, whom the leaves of vines adorn,
>Of Jove and Proserpine, occultly born.

Of the First-born king, the neverending one; and upon him all the immortals grew, blessed gods and goddesses and rivers and lovely springs and everything else that had then been born; and he himself became the sole one.

[Anonymous No.14216592]

>>14214493
I prefer Neon-Platonism Evangelicals

[Anonymous No.14217292]

Has anyone listened to the Numbers Station? Kinda a glownigger podcast but the practical neoplatonism episodes with Gregory Shaw are good...

[Anonymous No.14217688]

Then, my face wet with tears, I prayed to the Great Goddess:

‘Queen of Heaven, whether you are known as bountiful Ceres, the primal harvest mother, who, delighted at finding your daughter Proserpine again, abolished our primitive woodland diet, showed us sweet nourishment, and now dwell at Eleusis; or heavenly Venus, who at the founding of the world joined the sexes by creating Love, propagating the human race in endless generation, and worshipped now in the sea-girt sanctuary of Paphos; or Diana, Apollo’s sister, you who relieve the pangs of countless childbirths with your soothing remedies, venerated now at Ephesus; or dread Proserpine herself, she of the night-cries, who triple-faced combats the assault of spirits shutting them from earth above, who wanders the many sacred groves, propitiated by a host of rites; oh, light of woman, illuminating every city, nourishing the glad seed with your misty radiance, shedding that light whose power varies with the passage of the sun; in whatever aspect, by whatever name, with whatever ceremony we should invoke you, have mercy on me in the depths of my distress, grant good fortune, give me peace and rest after cruel tribulation. Let the toil, the dangers I’ve endured suffice. Rid me of this foul four-footed form, restore me to the sight of my own people; make me the Lucius I once was. Or if I may not live, if I have offended some deity who hounds me with inexorable savagery, grant me the gift of death.’