/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22784828]

Is the neo-platonic conception of The One/The Monad pantheistic or panentheistic? Or can it be either?

[Anonymous No.22784832]

Not /lit/ . Fuck off

[Anonymous No.22784851]

>>22784832
You think /otherboards/ would be able to coherently provide an answer? Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.22784858]

>>22784851
I don’t give a shit what you think, your post isn’t /lit/, fuck off!

[Anonymous No.22784892]

>>22784828
unfalsifiable nonsense

[Anonymous No.22784939]

[Anonymous No.22784957]

>>22784858
>>22784832
Yes it is you dummy, because it’s about Neoplatonic literature. Plotinus’s Enneads = literature, as well as the written works of other Neoplatonists like Iamblichus, Porphyry and Proclus. /lit/ is for both fiction and nonfiction (philosophy is traditionally included in nonfiction) as the sticky makes clear. Stop whining about one tiny little thread you’ve decided you don’t like and do something useful or at least pleasant, there’s other threads, you can make one, philosophy threads have been here from the start and will be here till the end.

>>22784828
To the OP, it is closer to panentheism. Plotinus stresses the One’s complete transcendence over all created things, being different from the mere totality of all beings taken together, and even beyond the categories of being and non-being both. Yet Plotinus also holds the capacity for a nondual participation in the One or a rising in the spirit to see one’s unity with the One, as such: “We ought not even to say that he will see [the One], but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one.”

Pantheism = God (or some transcendental principle like God) is simply everything or spread out across the entire universe, with no effective difference between God and the universe (Spinoza is like this)
Panentheistic = God pervades the universe, or emanated it out of Himself (or, in more Neoplatonic terms: the One emanated the universe out of itself, without it nothing would exist, and It stands in relation to creation as the Sun does to the Moon, the Moon’s light being entirely dependent on the Sun’s), yet in Its transcendental aspect the One/God is beyond even the immanent universe. In panentheism, the Divine Principle in question pervades all time, space, and creation, but also transcends it.

Because the One emanates the entire created universe out of Itself in Plotinus’s cosmology yet remains transcendent to it, it can be called closer to panentheism. But some might argue against that, as everyone loves arguing about everything here. For instance, maybe some might argue that the One is not God, hence, it can’t be panentheism, which, etymologically, has -theism in it or is referring to God (theos) in its Greek root.

[Anonymous No.22784961]

Whether the terms "panentheism" or "pantheism" apply to neoplatonism is irrelevant to what neoplatonism actually says and only says anything about how you use the term "panentheism" or "pantheism". I can give you an answer if you tell me what you think those words mean.

[Anonymous No.22784962]

>>22784957
Not /lit/. Try /his/, /x/, and /trash/

[Anonymous No.22784963]

>>22784828
The latter, the "lower" realities are emanations of the one yet not THE one, sounds like panentheism to me.

[Anonymous No.22784966]

>>22784962
Shut the fuck up you subhuman anti-ontological moron. Philosophy threads are /lit/ because philosophy is literature. It’s been like these for many years since /lit/ was created. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.22784978]

>>22784957
There is only one universe in neoplatonism that is generated through the chain of procession all of the parts of which are connected and the whole series of procession is reversible through reversion. "Panentheism" makes it sound like there is some kind of separate universe outside the universe that is God. But the one is not a separate universe. The only sense in which the one is "outside" the universe is the same sense in which literally everything is outside literally everything else, by being something different than all those things. And since it is possible to revert on the One it doesn't make sense to say it is outside the universe anyway. the "transcendence" does not mean "outside the universe".

[Anonymous No.22784986]

>>22784978
This is why I tried not to use spatial terms like “outside,” unless I miswrote something. I tried to get the sense by saying the One transcends the created universe while the created universe also partakes in the One.

[Anonymous No.22785002]

>>22784986
It's a worthless fucking term and everyone who uses it should neck themselves. Literally every system that affirms a first cause is "panentheistic" by this criteria because the only reason neoplatonism is "panentheistic" is that the one transcends the universe, but all its transcendence means is that it creates everything and hence must be something more than what it created including being.

[Anonymous No.22785038]

Neo-Platonism's conception of The One or The Monad tends to lean more towards a form of pantheism. The One is often described as the ultimate source and the transcendent unity from which everything emanates. It's considered the supreme, all-encompassing reality that contains all things within itself, but also transcends them. While there are variations in interpretation, many scholars view Neo-Platonism's The One as more aligned with a pantheistic perspective, where the divine is immanent within the universe rather than existing separately or transcendentally alongside it.

[Anonymous No.22785077]

>>22785002
What I read was, “It’s a worthless fucking term because [it means what it means]”. Theism is also a very simple term but still useful inasmuch as words/language is useful to discuss anything.

> Literally every system that affirms a first cause is "panentheistic" by this criteria
Not necessarily. Let’s take the modern common approach of physics: the Big Bang is a reputed first cause, but it’s not a God or transcendental principle, so modern physics is (by and large) not panentheistic.

To give another example, some modern Christians, at least on here at times, dislike the term panentheism (because it’s too close, I suppose, to the word pantheism and they feel it “degrades God”, even though panentheistic statements are in the New Testament, arguably some statements by Christ and certainly some by Paul), and prefer the classical theism of an absolutely kinglike God who created the universe yet stands outside of it. Various Islamic mystics and particularly Sufis are commonly panentheists but other traditional Muslims, again, will take umbrage to this and stress Allah’s complete transcendence over the created universe. So it does distinguish different beliefs.

>>22785038
This is why you shouldn’t blindly trust ChatGPT, it can get nuances wrong

[Anonymous No.22785088]

The correct word is monist

[Anonymous No.22785130]

>>22784978
>>22785002
Stop being a spastic, anon clearly said "it is closer to panentheism". This is both true and also satisfies your terminological prissiness.

[Anonymous No.22785166]

>>22784957
Thank you for your effort post, it helped me put my finger on the situation.
>maybe some might argue that the One is not God
that would just be semantics because the ultimate reality is what it is, no matter what you call it.

Now I have the question that if panentheistic idealism is true, then would the One be mind itself or would the One possess a mind? My guess is the latter.

[Anonymous No.22785192]

>>22784939
No, the thread is not off topic because it is about books of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22785209]

Perhaps read euclid to learn more about 1

[Anonymous No.22785254]

>>22785166
The One is beyond even mind (or beyond Nous, Intellect, yet this is reliant on the One) in Plotinus, beyond even sentience or self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.22785278]

A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.22785293]

>>22785166
Idealism I usually find is defined in opposition to materialism, ie everything is mind rather matter. Neither are true actually, but it is true matter is an emanation of the mind, but mind and matter are in vedantic terms, dual, while the ultimate is non dual. I believe a platonist would say mind and matter are composite while the one is absolutely simplistic, non-composite, hence the term "the one". Matter is an emanation of mind but matter and mind are emanations of the one.

[Anonymous No.22786375]

>>22785254
thanks man
>beyond even sentience or self-awareness
Could you expound on that part or recommend the proper Plotinus I'd need to read to get into that?
>>22785293
Holy smokes, that makes perfect sense.
>>22785209
Anything in particular?

[Anonymous No.22787085]

>>22786375
>>22784978
Is there a heaven in Neo-Platonism and where is it? Neo Platonsits talk more of individual ascension of exceptional souls not like a general heaven of regular good people like the Christians see it. Where would the Christian heaven be? Above the demiurge? Below the forms?
Is there a heaven for the masses at all in Platonism?

[Anonymous No.22787088]

Are there more Forms than there are Henads? Like which group are more numerous, are there like loads of Forms and a few selected Henads? Or vice versa.

[Anonymous No.22787230]

>>22784828
It is not Pantheist, but it could be Panentheist.

It lends itself more easily to the Shia Muslim understanding of God such as in the 185th and 186th sermon of Nahj Al-Balagha, however it could also be understood from a Panentheist such as the sufi understanding by Ibn Arabi in Wuhdat Al-Wujood

Basically it could be panentheist. But it is not pantheist.

[Anonymous No.22787915]

>>22787085
If forms, and even the universe, are found within the mind of "God" then why couldn't heaven be there, too? Heaven doesn't have to be physical.

[Anonymous No.22787945]

>>22787915
The forms aren’t heaven there more super structures of reality.

[Anonymous No.22788376]

What is the difference between pantheism and panentheism? They seem very similar.

[Anonymous No.22788803]

>>22788376
The universe IS God vs the Universe is contained within God or within the mind of God.

[Anonymous No.22788806]

>>22788376
It's the difference between:
>This rock is LITERALLY GOD
and
>God can connect with/to this rock
Or if that's pushing it too far for you, substitute "rock" for "human".

[Anonymous No.22789333]

>>22786375
>beyond even sentience or self-awareness
>>Could you expound on that part or recommend the proper Plotinus I'd need to read to get into that?
His Enneads, his major and only we have work (actually the compiled works of Plotinus’s on different but extremely closely related concepts, with a clear overriding fusion by Plotinus of all these ideas into one complete body of thought, by his student Porphyry).

>why is this?
If the One were “self-aware” or “sentient” in the way we usually apply it to ourselves, It would automatically be split into the-one-who-is-aware and the content-of-its-awareness. It would be split between subject and object, between the consider-er [sic] and whatsoever is being considered, automatically introducing duality into the One.

Likewise, Plotinus cannot even attribute action to the One, as for It to act would again divide It between the actor and what is being acted on, between agent and patient, the active and passive, the One acting on something outside Itself, or even on something inside Itself, which would still introduce duality into the One. Plotinus of course again says the One does not even think, It is above thought, as this would once again introduce a duality between the thinker and the thought in the One, so it would not be One. The One is hence transcendent even above Mind, Intellect, or Nous, and is like the pure “light” from which even Nous (Intellect) derives its existence. It’s simply ONE.

The rough four levels of Plotinus by the way (the One, the Intellect, the Soul [Desirous Soul], and Matter], interestingly, also correspond to the four levels of Vedanta (gross matter, the subtle realm, the causal realm, and Atman/Brahman or turiya, the fourth state which is the monistic transcendental source of all these), an interesting bone for thought.

[Anonymous No.22789692]

>>22788803
>>22788806
Ty

[Anonymous No.22790146]

>>22789333
>If the One were “self-aware” or “sentient” in the way we usually apply it to ourselves, It would automatically be split into the-one-who-is-aware and the content-of-its-awareness. It would be split between subject and object, between the consider-er [sic] and whatsoever is being considered, automatically introducing duality into the One.
How much of this is merely a linguistic distinction? With self-consciousness, the subject is the object, and the object is the subject. They are united. We can invent distinctions to understand what's happening with greater resolution (especially since our day-to-day understanding is that subject and object are different), but to reify these distinctions is to obscure what's actually happening.

[Anonymous No.22790340]

>>22789333
>Plotinus cannot even attribute action to the One
Is he trying to say the One can only have a 'sub'conscious which is where the universe would reside? Because if the act of even thinking is enough to impose dualism into the One then how can the universe even exist?

[Anonymous No.22791653]

>>22790146
Not that anon, but there is an important distinction to be made here, specifically between knowledge or awareness considered as either a knowing/subjective pole vs an known/object pole and on the other hand knowledge of awareness considered as being essentially a partless and simple entity or reality. In Greek thought, there isn't any clear exposition AFAIK of awareness as being like a partless light that reveals itself and other things without itself being divided, this is a more eastern idea that's found in certain kinds of Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Ishraqi thought.

Aristotle assigns the knowing function to the intellect, and speaks of the intellect as coming to know different objects, but he doesn't go into detail about the very nature of consciousness/awareness itself, considered independently of the intellect knowing something. To speak about the intellect knowing an object that's different from it in this manner is admitting some level of duality between the knower and known. Even if you speak about the intellect knowing itself that is still a kind of duality, since the intellect is being assigned the capacity of the knower, which is "directionally" directed back at itself as its own content (i.e. it's still a kind of plurality that makes no sense to attribute to the One). It's partly for this reason no doubt that Plotinus makes intellect a subsequent emanation of the One instead of assigning it to the One itself.

The different eastern schools talk about the subject of awareness differently but in Yoga, Samkhya and Advaita Vedanta, the intellect is what knows objects and awareness (The Atman or Purusha) passively illumines the intellect's workings while remaining itself partless, unchanging and simple. There is no duality in the Advaitic notion of a partless and self-illuminating (self-revealing) Atman such as found in the notion of an intellect contemplating itself, because there is no portion assigned the "knower" role and no portion assigned the "content" role; the self-disclosure of presence is not a separate action or function that is over/above awareness but it is the essential basic nature of awareness.

Some people who are into both eastern and western thought think that this kind of distinctionless partless self-revealing "Atman" awareness is implicitly hinted at or presupposed as belonging to the One in the model of Plotinus but I don't know the source texts well enough myself to say how feasible that interpretation is.

[Anonymous No.22792023]

>>22784828
>pantheistic
no

>panentheistic
Not necessarily but one could read it that way.

>>22784957
>you forgot to attache the Giga Chad image

>>22784978
In other terms ~ :
>>22790869

>>22785038
>indefinite dyad, emanationism
It's transcendant, but one might say the pantheism was true up to the demiurge.

>>22785293
>matter is an emanation of the mind, but mind and matter are in vedantic terms, dual, while the ultimate is non dual

Matter is counterspace to Nous, it is lacking/deficient/a 'fallen' modulation thereof.

[Anonymous No.22792039]

>>22784828
Read picrel and
>Platonic Doctrines of Albinus.
https://archive.org/details/img-20201003-0058-merged

>Algis Uzdavinys. Orpheus & The Roots of Platonism.
https://archive.org/details/algis-uzdavinys-orpheus-and-the-roots-of-platonism

>-- Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth
https://ia904607.us.archive.org/3/items/6275-philosophy-as-a-rite-of-rebirth-from-ancient-egypt-to-neoplatonism/Ancient%20Egypt%20Hermeticism/%236275_Philosophy_as_a_Rite_of_Rebirth_From_Ancient_Egypt_to_Neoplatonism.pdf

Get all of the Thomas Taylor translations of the Greeks. The above will serve you in good stead as primers and for re-read study mileage.

[Anonymous No.22792046]

>>22785192

[Anonymous No.22792473]

>>22791653
I see what you're saying, and it does make sense to cover one's bases by relegating the intellect to after the One. However, I'm still have some reservations.
>Even if you speak about the intellect knowing itself that is still a kind of duality, since the intellect is being assigned the capacity of the knower, which is "directionally" directed back at itself as its own content (i.e. it's still a kind of plurality that makes no sense to attribute to the One).
I'm still not convinced that we have created a duality here, unless we're operating through temporal assumptions of some kind. When the intellect is knowing itself in a kind of "eternal" process, the subject is the intellect and the object is the intellect. In other words, they are united. I don't think it makes sense to speak of directionality unless we are then to insert this process into time and space, inject a conception of "attention" (that focus can be divided and that there can be focus towards something other than the intellect), and so on. It's only when we add these assumptions that the notion of "parts" (which complicate things beyond the One) enters the story and thus makes it seem like a duality.

[Anonymous No.22792678]

>>22792473
It is true that you could theoretically attribute a divine intellect to the One that is ever absorbed in self-knowledge, and you could claim that any sort of speech involving duality that we use to describe this is purely nominal and not reflective of any duality in the scheme itself as it’s really occurring; of course such an intellect would not have any possibility of changing the object of its knowledge, or changing or having any willpower at all; which means it kind of ceases to resemble the human intellect in any fashion. I could see how it might be feasible but it would require a lot of reservations being made.

I just personally find this less attractive philosophically than skipping intellect altogether and attributing a pure self-luminous awareness to the Absolute but that’s just a personal preference, you can certainly take a divine intellect as your starting point and arrive at basically the same end-point as the Atman model if you just make enough reservations and clarifications about what exactly you mean; partly because people are naturally conditioned when they hear “intellect” to think about something which doesn’t correspond much to what you would be talking about.

[Anonymous No.22792706]

>>22792473
Not that anon but what I don't get is:
>When the intellect is knowing itself in a kind of "eternal" process
Here we have the One, an intellect, the act of knowing, a process... so many things. Yet the One is supposed to be ultimately simple. At any point when you introduce a characteristic to it, it's already another thing and no longer simple. I don't think those are language tricks if they're actual properties and processes. It's why Neoplatonists have the intellect and the soul as separate things.

[Anonymous No.22792721]

>>22784892
It's contradictory nonsense, really. They want something that is all, but also want separation and emanation/generation from it. Neoplatonism was poisoned by Plato's own inability to accept the eleatic teaching.

[Anonymous No.22792964]

>>22792678
Isn't this exactly what Hegel was getting at in the Phenomenology?

[Anonymous No.22793007]

>>22784828
neither. The One referred to as totally transcendent, see Plato's Parmenides 1st Hypothesis, is exempt from absolutely everything else. The One as potency (dynamis) and fount (pêgê) of all Being, I think could be interpreted as panentheistic.

> Neither “the One” nor “all things” accord with [the One]. These are a pair of binary oppositions that divide our consciousness [of the One]. If we focus on the One as simple, we lose sight of the complete perfection of that principle. If we conceive it as all things simultaneously, we destroy its unity and simplicity. The cause of this is that we ourselves are divided and we distractedly consider its characteristics as if they were separate.
Damascius, Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles, I. 25. 2
> Unity is everywhere; for there is no place where it is not; therefore it fills everything. By Him exists manifoldness; or rather, it is by Him that all things exist. If the One were only everywhere, He would simply be all things; but, as, besides, He is nowhere, all things exist by Him, because He is everywhere; but simultaneously all things are distinct from Him, because He is nowhere. Why then is Unity not only everywhere, but also nowhere? The reason is, that Unity must be above all things, He must fill everything, and produce everything, without being all that He produces.
Plotinus, Ennead III. 9

[Anonymous No.22793393]

>>22792678
Thank you for humoring my response, especially in drawing out the potential nominalism I may have introduced into my position. A couple of questions:
>such an intellect would not have any possibility of changing the object of its knowledge, or changing or having any willpower at all; which means it kind of ceases to resemble the human intellect in any fashion
Why do you say this is the case? I partially ask because I based my response off of a certain reading of Aristotle’s unmoved mover, thought thinking itself. It is pure actuality, and actuality entails a sort of “completeness”, but it does not preclude accidental change of any kind as long as the substance is preserved.
>skipping intellect altogether and attributing a pure self-luminous awareness to the Absolute
What exactly is a “self-luminous awareness” and how is it different from an intellect? Words like luminous, numinous, etc., seem to be common among Eastern philosophers, but they seem flowery and imprecise to me.

[Anonymous No.22793417]

>>22792706
>Here we have the One, an intellect, the act of knowing, a process... so many things. Yet the One is supposed to be ultimately simple. At any point when you introduce a characteristic to it, it's already another thing and no longer simple. I don't think those are language tricks if they're actual properties and processes.
I am that anon. Here’s the question I offer to you. Can’t everything be potentiality described with infinite complexity? For example, think of any topic, any object, etc., and what it’s like to describe it fully zoomed out versus fully zoomed in. At different resolutions, you either have a unity and simplicity or a plurality and complexity. It also depends on your purpose of description as well. Different characteristics shine to different people depending on their needs, skills, and experiences. Hell, most monotheists hold their God to be simple, yet they have countless names for him. Finally, consider the difference between angelic thinking (almost fully actual beings) and human thinking (hylomorphic, thus part actual and part potential) as explored in this well-produced short below:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iwJNi-f1NPc
Notice the effects of that actual/potential distinction: humans think discursively, which is in parts, while angels think intuitively/noetically, which is “all at once.”

So, what exactly is a description? And how does a description relate to the metaphysics of something? That’s the question I ask you.

[Anonymous No.22793424]

>>22793007
>The One as potency (dynamis) and fount (pêgê) of all Being
Are the Neoplatonists using terms like dynamis in the same way that Aristotle would have used them (i.e. act vs potential)? How does the apex of Neoplatonic cosmology, the One possessing dunamis while also being a “fount”, clash with the apex of Aristotle’s cosmology possessing energeia while also being a “fount” of sorts (thought thinking thought, thinks forms and thus causes other substances into being, etc.). Idk how carefully the Neoplatonists handled this problem because it seems like there is a metaphysical trainwreck waiting to happen here.

[Anonymous No.22793624]

>>22784828
terrible thread

[Onions No.22793628]

>>22784828
I wish X posters were more intelligent.

[Anonymous No.22793684]

>>22784828
Panen. The One suffuses the being we are aware of and is infinitely more than that

[Anonymous No.22794240]

bump

[Anonymous No.22794337]

>>22793424
I understand in short Plotinus, Porphyry, etc. appropriate dunamis which originally as you say applies to Aristotelian physics to Neoplatonic metaphysics. It becomes a word that means the capacity of production in an atemporal and eternal sense, rather than the capacity for some physical being to move/change.