/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18817309]

Can a Neoplatonist begom Catholic with a Hellenistic understanding of Christianity and not be immediately called a heretic? There ain't no Academy no more, no mystery schools, and I just wanna accept that and try attain Plotinian henosis but inside a living Tradition. Help

[Anonymous No.18817328]

>There ain't no Academy no more
Is this ghetto lingo?

[Anonymous No.18817486]

>>18817309
No one will know, so it won't matter. Go through the motions like a basic Catholic and keep your ideology to yourself.

[Anonymous No.18817543]

>>18817309
Yeah

[Anonymous No.18817614]

>>18817309
>i like playing pretend as one thing that I learned about last month but the other thing I have an equally passing familiarity with has more people doing it
You're doing it wrong, start over.

[Anonymous No.18817688]

>>18817309
>Can a Neoplatonist begom Catholic with a Hellenistic understanding of Christianity and not be immediately called a heretic?

Maybe. If you accept the overarching doctrinal teachings of the Church, there is often a good deal of flexibility wrt the *reasons* or *rationale* you have for accepting those doctrines, or theological mysteries.

For example, there are only a couple of points in relation to Genesis 1-3 that Catholics must accept as historically true,* but beyond those matters, a great deal is left to each individual's personal interpretation of the text.

*E.g., Monogenism. See discussion here: https://www.catholicscientists.org/idea/adam-eve-evolution

You should read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and see if the doctrines and beliefs therein are amenable to you.

Chesterton was a convert to the Catholic Church. After he converted, he said the Church was larger on the inside than it appeared to be from the outside -- he was talking about something like that flexibility-within-fixed-boundaries mentioned above.

Anyway, read the Catechism - it's an inspired work, a beautifully composed summary of the faith - and see what you think.

And don't neglect to pray that God wouldn't enlighten your intellect to know the truth.

[Anonymous No.18819001]

You wanna google some combo of "Plato" + Augustine/ressourcement/pieper, plenty of space for genuine philosophy in the Tradition.

What there isn't space for is neo-"platonic" cope, which is universally a questionable retrofitting of foreign concepts onto a vague base, and generally unprofitable for proper theology. If you really must, read pseudo-dionysius.

[Anonymous No.18819023]

>>18817328
Yes but I read as hick speak which is probably what OP intended.

[Anonymous No.18819036]

>>18817309
>Eckhart
>Reneissance
Reneissance is around 1500, while Eckhart lived around 1200.

[Anonymous No.18819041]

>>18817309
>no mystery schools
Instead they evolved into esoteric orders, which are very prevalent the biggest being freemasonry

[Anonymous No.18819095]

>>18819001
You fucking azshole just wanna feel important by spouting shir, hoping nobody sees through it. What do you think the apophatic theology necessarily has to be based on, you imbecile?
I swear, this board jfc

[Anonymous No.18819718]

>>18817309
>and not be immediately called a heretic?

That happened to Pico.

[Anonymous No.18819729]

>>18819001
This man knows.

Pseudo-Dionysius is fascinating but ultimately I cannot buy that his theology is fully Christian. It's possible he was a sincere convert to Christianity and is trying to refute the neo-platonists, but he can't escape it. There is no mediation of Christ in his Mystical Theology. You are told to renounce everything we know from revelation. Aquinas was greatly influened by Pseudo-Dionysius, but knew never to go this far. Aquinas takes Pseudo-Dionysius' negative theology and turns it into analogy, and he says we should never negate revelation, and argues against the blank slate mindset that Pseudo-Dionysius wants in mysticism. For Aquinas we are never to stop meditating on the Incarnation.

[Anonymous No.18821190]

>>18819729
Everyone on this board wants to do anything but count some Rosary beads.

[Anonymous No.18822240]

Just follow the path of Augustine. Some parts of Neoplatonism are compatible, and some are not - but ultimately, Christianity perfects philosophy, and there is nothing lacking in it found in any other tradition.

"Thou procuredst for me, by means of one puffed up with most unnatural pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I read, not indeed in the very words, but to the very same purpose, enforced by many and divers reasons, that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the Same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made: that which was made by Him is life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. And that the soul of man, though it bears witness to the light, yet itself is not that light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. And that He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. But, that He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, as many as believed in His name; this I read not there.

Again I read there, that God the Word was born not of flesh nor of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God. But that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, I read not there. For I traced in those books that it was many and divers ways said, that the Son was in the form of the Father, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, for that naturally He was the Same Substance. But that He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, and that the death of the cross: wherefore God exalted Him from the dead, and gave Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should how, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father; those books have not. For that before all times and above all times Thy Only-Begotten Son remaineth unchangeable, co-eternal with Thee, and that of His fulness souls receive, that they may be blessed; and that by participation of wisdom abiding in them, they are renewed, so as to be wise, is there. But that in due time He died for the ungodly; and that Thou sparedst not Thine Only Son, but deliveredst Him for us all, is not there. For Thou hiddest these things from the wise, and revealedst them to babes [...]"

[Anonymous No.18822259]

look into clement of alexandria, origen, and gregory of nyssa

[Anonymous No.18823614]

Glad to see plenty of people suggesting OP read better books, and would echo getting into patristics as the correct way to keep the platonic impulse alive.

That said, it would be simply better to just move onto Aristotle.

>>18817543
baste

[Anonymous No.18823667]

"while studying Russian literature and the 19th century, I have never read 'Anna Karenina', and while studying patristics, I have never read Plato or pagan neo-Platonists.

but this was not because I denied their significance, but for a completely opposite reason: I understood that they relate to my topics so strongly that it is simply dangerous for me to read them. if your own mind needs to be tuned like a delicate device, then it is easy to break it with improperly made preparations (I was taught this in my school years in microbiology, and then in chemistry). therefore, one must either learn to make preparations on one's own, or, when possible, buy ready-made ones. and here you could buy ready-made ones (so, without having read "Anna Karenina", I read many times and with great attention what Dostoevsky and Leontiev wrote about it).

in the case of Plato and the Neoplatonists, this is even stronger: I know for myself an inner tendency towards neo-Platonism, in the spirit of Plotinus, but I know for sure that this is a vile false doctrine, and therefore I fear that direct contact with Plotinus might not be tolerated by my brain: I would not have renounced Orthodoxy, but all the settings for reading the Holy Fathers would have been knocked down. it is kind of like a well-tuned device to be subjected to the brutal influence of the strongest electromagnetic field.

reading the Neoplatonists for me would be analogous to replacing reading psychoanalytic literature with reading pornography. it is not useful for the soul if it is not a direct subject of your research (if it is, then, in principle, you can read and watch everything without restriction)."