Platonism and Neoplatonism

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete
I was reading on a website about the Neoplatonist Plotinus and how i see that he contributed to the monotheistic thoughtform. His view is from what i can understand is that there is the One and the Logos or the Hypystasis and the Logos which communicate with eachother in twofold through emanation and contemplation. I think it is kind of input and output of thoughts and reasoning between the divine and the mind. I haven't really looked into other Platonists and Neoplatonists but can anyone tell me what the difference is between Platonists and Neoplatonists?
The website about Plotinus i have found here:http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Plotinus.htm
Valete optime
Sokarus Aurelius Orcus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Plotinus is more mystical and is easier to integrate in a christian, ascetic context (although Plato had ascetic preferences as well). Neo-platonism is also more syncretic, I think.

I think our local specialist on platonism, Marcus Horatius, knows more about this. As I'm not particulary fond of neither platonism nor neo-platonism I'm more specialised in other currents .

Scorpio

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Scorpio
I noticed that when i read it but to be honest, Platonism suits me beter than Stoicism or any other philosophy. But i'm still looking for good books about the subject.
vale optime
Sokarus Aurelius Orcus

[Anonymous]

I noticed that when i read it but to be honest, Platonism suits me better than Stoicism or any other philosophy. But i'm still looking for good books about the subject.
vale optime
Sokarus Aurelius Orcus

I find it incredible that I happened to stumble across this particular thread when I did, despite the fact that it hasn't been posted to since last year sometime (if the datestamp is indeed correct).

I still am very much attracted to Stoicism and Cynicism (the two might appear to be mutually-exclusive, but I can assure you they fit like a hand to glove); however, the appeal of Platonism (which I prefer to call 'Pythagoreanism', since that is where Plato got many of his ideas from anyway) is such in that it combines the best of philosophy, and at the same time transcends it completely, to present mankind with the ultimate marriage of super-philosophy and religion. I also personally happen to view Platonism as being a refreshingly welcome alternative to the barrage of eccentric, almost commercialised and mass-produced Eastern culture which seems to be permeating the West nowadays.

In addition to Platonism (or 'Pythagoreanism'), I tend to find Pantheism in its original form to be most closely aligned with what I would feel most comfortable believing to be Truth. But then again, I also believe that all notions or conceptions of "Ultimate Reality", "Point of Origin of Matter and Energy", "Divine Cosmic Awareness", "Supreme Consciousness" (et cetera), are ultimately human limitations at work labeling and hypothesizing things they cannot even begin to understand, and attempts at understanding what they have absolutely no means of comprehending, at least not at this particular stage of the evolutionary process. Perhaps someday, we will know.

But suffice it to say, for the indefinite future, mankind is destined to look upward into the sky in a sense of awe and wonder, with tears of joy in his eyes, knowing happily that he is not supposed to understand, yet loving it anyway.

Vale optime,

*GAIVS IVLIVS CÆSAR OCTAVIANVS*

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete Cai et omnes

I'm glad you did stumble on the thread, as I seem to have missed it last year. Plato obviously did draw much from the Pythagoreans, and it can be difficult to tell the difference between Plotinus' Neoplatonism and the Neopythagorans of the same period. Theon of Smyrna takes a Pythagorean view of Plato. Plato himself though attributed his ideas to the Orphics, seeing them as also the source of Pythagorus.

Resident expert is a misnomer on two counts. I use Platonism as a language to discuss philosophical speculations of a religious nature because it has become the common reference point in Western civilization, to include India. What Campbell referred to as the "perrenial philosophy." There is some question over how much Greek influence may come into those "Eastern philosophies" and then how Platonism has been used to translate them for us Westerners. Platonism is also the foundation of Christian and Muslim theology. Augustine of Hippo of course used Platonism in his ideas. More directly, Proclus' "Elements of Theology" was mistaken by Christians as a work of Aristotle and used to for arguments in Medieval philosophy's theology. Islamic philosophy basically begins with the discovery of the Neoplatonist school at Haran, transferred then to Bagdad. And then to understand the development of Christian theology you need to go back to Muslim commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. Whether we realize it or not, comparative religious studies is rooted in Platonist thought. I do prefer the purer form of Platonism as something to consider, rather than the various representations made of Eastern, mostly Indian thought.

I should say that I was raised by a very Stoic mother and still think more as a Stoic than a Platonist. Plotinus is a personal hero of mine, due more for his personal life than his philosophy. I find him thought provoking as I do Sartre, but I do not necessarily go along with his ideas. I do not consider myself a Platonist even though I enjoy reading Platonist and Neoplatonist philosophers. Monotheism of Plotinus and of all Platonists I find to be uncertain, and not consistent. Pantheism comes from the Pythagorean-Platonist idea of a single source and the Platonist explanation of creation through emmanation. I do not think I accept that view, at least not as something we can be sure of. What would appear evident to me is polytheistic. And Kosmos, I do not think I quite accept that perspective of the Universe. What is awe inspiring is that there appears to be so much order in such a chaotic universe, and that perhaps may be an argument for the influence of the gods at work.

Books on Neoplatonism, Orce. I can't think of any off hand. Plotinus is exceptionally difficult to plow into by himself. You need some guideline or else a very well annotated copy of the Enneads. There are books available on the philosophy of Plotinus, but I wouldn't know which to recommend. Proclus appears more organized at times, but you really have to pay attention and question some of his line of reasoning.

The difference between Neoplatonism and Platonism is Aristotle. Plotinus quotes Aristotle more often than he does Plato. Plotinus also incorporated aspects of Stoic philosophy, but by his time Stoics like Panaetius and Posidonius had been heavily influenced by Platonism. Syncretic as Draco had said. Later Neoplatonists went back to Plato more, and were influenced by Neopythagorans as well, so that they tend to reinterpret Aristotle from Plato's point of view. By the mid third to fourth century there was little to distinguish one school of philosophy from the others as all had meld into the Hellenist paradigm that became the basis for Western civilization as we know it today.

Valete
Moravius Piscinus

[Anonymous]

Salvete

Monotheism of Plotinus and of all Platonists I find to be uncertain, and not consistent. Pantheism comes from the Pythagorean-Platonist idea of a single source and the Platonist explanation of creation through emmanation. I do not think I accept that view, at least not as something we can be sure of. What would appear evident to me is polytheistic.

The inconsistancy could be due to the way the works are read and the words we now use to understand them.

The words Monotheism & Polytheism were not used, at least not in the way we use them now and have become mutually exclusive, loaded terms.

I don’t think one should drive a wedge between the philosophers and the poets just because of the different language they employ.

The Gods of Hesiod are the God of Plotinus.

The philosophers would have been more interested in the relationship between the “One and the Many”.

Pantheists can argue pantheism “into” Plato or Pythagoras but Sallistius in his Gods & the World ridicules the Pantheism of the Egyptians.

The One of the Neo-platonists seems to me to be quite transcendent, not at all immanent.

BTW the Neo-platonists didn’t call themselves Neo-anything. To themselves they were Platonists. We today distinguish between an earlier and later schools, as a literary convention.

Vale

[Anonymous]

Salvete Piscine,

I really enjoyed your post, which was in fact a response to several other posts including mine, which you handled commendably well. (I can usually only respond to one at a time or else smoke inevitably begins to pour out of my ears.)

But anyway, I found it all very informative and have saved it locally if you don't mind, in order to refer back to it in the future.

There was, however, one small but nonetheless important area that I am unable to understand or agree with, as follows:

Platonism is also the foundation of Christian and Muslim theology. Augustine of Hippo of course used Platonism in his ideas.

I have both heard and read statements that allude to the above, and have repeatedly questioned myself as to whether or not I've been missing something fundamental all my life, as I have never been able to see how the Christians or Muslims did anything but plagiarise the works of the ancient philosophers shamelessly to achieve their own diabolical ends in a worldly sense, or to take timeless wisdom bestowed upon mankind by the divine through evolution, and then stuff it into a tiny cardboard box, which is an accurate symbolism for the manner in which they attempt to subjugate and confine any and all concepts of Infinity, Divine Energy, and Ultimate Reality into a space of about 1cm square, since that's all their tiny little minds can handle, and they then threaten with death or bodily harm any person who refuses to sacrifice their mind, soul, and common-sense and submit themselves blindly to their narrow-minded, dogmatic cult.

I tend to identify intimately with men like Porphyry, who didn't necessarily have a problem with Christ or his teachings, but rather the gross inconsistencies between him and his so-called followers, and subsequently, he thus exposed the Christians for exactly what they were then, are now, always have been, and always will be -- ignorant people and deceivers, who play the part of the helpless, victimized sheep when they have no other recourse, and then instantly transform into a pack of ravenous wolves the moment the balance of power shifts in their favor, as was evidenced from the year 312 CE onward, with the help of one sick, mentally-unstable individual named Constantinus (I refuse to call him or any other Christian "Imperator") who undoubtedly should've been strangled as an infant to spare the world what he later allowed to be unleashed upon humanity.

Obviously, this doesn't hold true for everyone, but then again, I don't think that Porphyry was necessarily including everyone in a blanket statement, but rather the upper-echelon and elite that have always operated on a different level behind the scenes to affect their own desires for absolute power and world domination.

But getting back more in-line with the subject matter, I am unable to understand what Christians like Augustine ever did except shamelessly twist and distort the original teachings of Plato and others into a warped Christian worldview and mentality. Ditto for the Muslims, who fare no better. There have always been and always will be those who copy and paste bits and pieces of philosophy together to conform to their own ignorant, narrow scope of reality, and stamp a trademark on it in favor of one particularly dangerous cult or another.

However, in response to a request made originally by Romulus (I believe), I have found several fairly-decent introductory works which, to be sure, are not much more than compilations or overviews of Platonistic thought as a whole, but are still a good point to start until you decide exactly what you're looking for.

Until next time,

*GAIVS IVLIVS CÆSAR OCTAVIANVS*
"Non scholae sed vitae discimus."
"Multi famam, conscientiam pauci verentur."

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Cai

Mi amice, you seem to have a degree of resentment in your views that, at least would appear, carried you away in your comments on Christians. Generalizations do not clarify. May I point out that some of our sodales and amici are Christians, among them my wife and a very close friend who probably would enjoy being identified as a wolfie if not as a ravenous wolf, and might readily admit to ignorance on some things but would not appreciate being characterized as ignorant. You should try to qualify some of your comments, and be more specific rather than making sweeping generaliztions.

A phiosophy made by cut and paste might be an accusation to make against Plotinus, too. Or Posidonius, or Plato for that matter, as lines of reasoning are examined and ideas of various people are brought into our discussions. The Muslims, as far as I can determine, tried to take ancient philosophy and assimulate it to their own understanding. Changing it perhaps, but in no less a manner, and no more deceptively than we do today as we study the words of ancient philosophers and try to relate them to a modern world. Early Christian writers, in some cases I might agree with you if you gave specific examples. I think you could make a case against Augustinus of Hippo. But it would be better perhaps to start at the beginning with Paul who quotes from the works of others, who uses terms from Greek philosophy although with his own unique meaning, and laid the basis for certain forms of Christianity. Paul, I would say, gave direct rise to the Gnostic form of Christianity. What later was attributed as works of Paul but were forgeries (about half of the Pauline epistles found today in Christian books) had influence on how Christianity later developed.

Anyway I think the subject of the rise of Christianity is an important one for us to understand paganism. Certainly its rise and challenge allowed the development in paganism of an identifying theology for paganism. Plotinus had to address assertions made by Valentinians. Porphyry, Celsus, Plotinus, Julian, Symmachus all wrote in reaction to Christian thought and thereby tried to crystalize pagan thought. I think their words can be more important to us today since we too live in a world shared with Christians. It is a topic perhaps best taken up in the Collegium Religionis. But generalizations and mischaracterizations would not do well for either pagans or Christians to correct our mutual ignorance over what had happened in the past. Nor would it be conducive to our living together in mutual respect today.

I find it encouraging that some Christians, either in groups or as individuals, are now realizing there is much for them to learn from their pagan origins. I have been approached on occasiion to discuss our common pagan heritage. Their are of course others, I do not know what to term them. When a certain Texas televangelists says "Tolerance is a sin" then he is preaching a religion of hate and appears to me to be contradicting what was attributed as the teachings of Jesus. When members of a certain Baptist congregation goes about the country condemning people for their sexual preferences, I see them preaching a religion of hate. But I do not construe from that that all Christians, or all Baptists, follow in the same path. I think it would most benefit ourselves as pagans if we embrace those Christians who do wish to live with us and learn from us, while still rejecting the other forms of hate religion passing as Christianity, and in the process we may also learn some things of ourselves as pagans from our Christian friends.

Vale
Moravius Piscinus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Gai Iuli,

Piscinus said many things I would have said, but of course he's way out of my league in terms of religious knowledge so I'll leave it at that.

However, I wanted to point out one more thing.

Don't forget that the culture of Antiquity we are discussing here was preserved thanks to christian monks and nuns in abbeys, often with a lot of effort. Of course, it was a blade that cut both ways... they selected what was to be preserved, and it wasn't that much, compared to what has been written in Antiquity (I'll never forgive'em for burning Claudius' books on Etruria ).

Still, christianity has benefited many people too, and not only the aristocrats. Some saints or monks are outstanding moral examples to all of us.

But of course the modern Catholic Church is a horrible institution, with an almost liquid, dementing pope. He condems the use of condoms in a continent like Africa, where AIDS is spreading wildfire. I don't judge individual christians because of the pope, but the pope is definitely insane when he preaches this.

Luckily, however, Europe has remained spared from influential christian fundies in the last decades... (and hopefully will remain so forever ).

Optime vale!
Draco

[Anonymous]

~Salve Draco et Piscine~

I wish to first of all apologize for admittedly getting a bit too carried away when I probably should've been in bed. I wish to also clarify, however, that I was in fact referring to (and did in fact mention) that I intended those words specificially for those who, throughout the ages, have been in the upper-echelon of Church government, be it Catholic or Protestant, who pull the strings of power and manipulate the masses; I never meant nor implied individual Christian followers, but rather the aforementioned type, as well as the institution of Church as such, but never individual Christians. In addition, I would like to add that since basically my entire family happens to be of various Christian denominations, ranging from both Catholic to fringe sects of Protestantism (even Jehovah Witnesses!), and everywhere in between, such a view would not only be extremely stupid, but terribly thoughtless and heartless as well. Having said that, the "ravenous wolves" I was referring to exclusively were the "movers and shakers", not only within the early Church who secretly longed to sit on thrones and have power and dominate others, but also ultra-conservative elements within modern-day Fundamentalism as well who prey upon the unsuspecting people in their own congregations.

Obviously I should've stated more clearly that individual members of ANY religion are never to blame, and in fact nearly always have the best possible intentions and motives for their beliefs and convictions, as well as true piety.

Anyway, I hope I helped to clarify that a bit, and as I said before, I promise not to go off like that again; just had a bit of a gripe I had to vent, especially after having been attacked by several Fundies in person the other day while in a store, which admittedly fueled my rant on the post in question.

But back to business... I hope the two of you, as well as everyone else, would agree to not only expound further if possible on this or other philosophies as well, but also maybe even begin a new thread. Also, I think it would be rather nice to be silly for a moment and give your ideas and comments on the "Computers and Souls" thread that has been recently resurrected and put at the top of the page of Collegium Philosophicum.

Vale optime in pace deorum,