As a Buddhist with platonic leanings I often reflect on on the similarities and contrasts between these two systems. In this regard I found Ellery Beard's three pillars or principles of Platonism very helpful. There are many Buddhist parallels with the 'self moving soul', and its journey to knowledge. The greatest contrast is in the area of ontology. There is no 'paradigmatic ontology' in Buddhism, rather what I would call rather awkwardly an 'aggregation ontology'. In the Buddhist cosmos there are three great spheres or levels of existence: karma loka, rupa loka, arupa loka. That is the worlds of desire, pure form and very subtle 'formless form'. Nirvana is simply the cessation of, or escape from, all of that! There is no descending chain of causality responsible for any of these levels, they simply arise from the collective karma of living beings. In other words if you practice hard and habitually experience meditation states of pure form, it is said you will after death find yourself hanging out with a bunch of other similar beings. Such a group of godlike beings are said to project a shared world or sphere of existence, of apparent objectivity, which is experienced as a realm of pure forms. Aeons later you might all degenerate and find yourselves back in a shared karma loka like planet earth, but that's another story… And that's it really, disappointingly there is no chain of being as such, and there are no eternal Forms. Questions that might occur to a platonist such as what are these pure forms? What faculty of the mind allows one to experience them? Are not entertained. A concentrated, ethically pure mind sees pure - visionary, or heavenly forms. That is all you need to know - says the Buddha. In the arupa loka you do experience various very subtle, albeit impermanent states of, for example, 'infinite consciousness', which sound a bit like the sphere of Intellect in Plotinus, but they have no ontological status from 'their own side', so to speak. Only Nirvana is permanent of course, and that by definition has no form. Yet, putting aside metaphysics, in the area of symbology we find in the Mahayana and Vajrayana many archetypal Buddhas, such as Amitabha - Buddha of infinite light who, while one in essence, are provisionally distinguished in qualities, and have various symbolic connections with different aspects of the material world. Together with the ritual and visualisation practices that evoke them, this all sounds rather like Theurgy...
I would add briefly that emanation in the Platonic "Chain of Being" is not "causal" in the way we conceptualize it as a process. Emanation is _instant_ and eternal overflow, and it "flows" like light through filters; we could say that the flow through filters (e.g. embodiment) is what constitutes _consubstantiality._ The emanation from the Intellect, which is simultaneously an "intelligible intellecting activity," is not causality in space or time. We could make a kind of bridge, then, with the later developments of the Buddha Dhamma in Zen, where the latter is much more aligned with Plotinus. The original Buddhist doctrines (e.g. the Noble Eightfold Path) by Guatama himself - if we look into the original Pali Canon and amend the bad English translations - prescribes a rigorous method or step by step process that is _very_ similar to Iamblichus' theurgy.
The similarities and overlaps are bound to be their seeing as both the platonic and Buddhists traditions undoubtedly stem from a common archaic tradition held by the protoindoeuropeans that spread these theological systems and philosophies all over the world. Great stuff
I was screaming in my head the whole time, “lloyd gerson, lloyd gerson!” and was so pleased when he went there. I hope you can get him on one day, he may be the greatest living Platonist.
Absolutely fascinating. As a Catholic, I realise how much I don't know about the depths of our theology, which has developed from a synthesis of Judaism's cosmology with Graeco-Roman philosophy. Thank you for posting this and please keep it up!
I could recommend another potential interviewee Radek Chlup is the author of an extremely lucid and revealing introduction to Proclus, published by Cambridge university press. I would love to hear his views on developments of neoplatonism after Plotinus.
Agreed. In that vein, I care not how educated a person may be since their opinion about any philosopher is worth, after adding fifty cents to it, half-a-buck to me. It's just their opinion.
One thing that divides Old Academy platonism from Middle platonism and from neoplatonism is the fact that the academies were different institutions there were breaks inbetween... therfore it is possible that oral doctrine (clearly important to ancient people and Plato) could easily be lost with each break in the 'Academy'
If you haven't checked it out, Dr. Justin Sledge and I recently did a swapcast on some of the crossroads between Kabbalah and Neoplatonism: th-cam.com/video/OaY_znUkN3k/w-d-xo.html
Soul = Integrated Psyche (Heart, Mind, Will). We are here to transform our temporal caterpillar Psyche (lead) into an Eternal Butterfly Soul (Gold), by alchemically integrating our Heart (sulphur), Mind (mercury), and Will (salt). When the Heart aspires, the Mind inquires and the Will conspires (combines). Principle: Reality (That which is) Attribute: Absolute (All-inclusive) Potential = Being Actual = Becoming (actualized) Matter = Activity We actualize potential by dreaming our experience and experiencing our dream. Since only Creative Intelligence can either affirm or deny that That which is, either is or is not Creative Intelligence, That which is, is Creative Intelligence. Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself. Love is the recognition of our shared Being. Reality functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse. Since potential for actualization is Infinite, actualization of potential is Eternal, for only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. It is identification with the temporal that blocks awareness of the presence of the Eternal within the temporal. We are not a drop in the ocean, we are the ocean in a drop. The Word of Truth that is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality (That which is), incarnates (manifests) as the metaphorical Light of Wisdom and Understanding unto the darkness of ignorance and folly; yet those dwelling in the darkness of their ignorance comprehended not the meaning of the metaphorical Word of truth and continued in their justification of literalism.
"In fact, one must not try to discover where he comes from. For there is not any ‘where’; he neither comes from nor goes anywhere, he both appears and does not appear. For this reason, it is necessary not to pursue him, but to remain in stillness, until he should appear, preparing oneself to be a contemplator, just like the eye awaits the rising sun. The sun rising over the horizon - the poets say ‘from Ocean’ - gives himself to be seen with the eyes." Plotinian Grace.
I get why if Iamblichus is favored/correct Plotinus's approach is wrong but is this also true the other way around? Couldn't you just add ritual to your contemplation?
You ever think about the times and all these people were literate and had influence but where were the libraries? And the private libraries, books must've been a fortune to acquire unless you're in the cults who had a pot to pitch in and buy books or favor to make introduction to these people who where most likely funded by or cared for by Royalty who thirsted for knowledge while other's interested in materialistic fashion art music and legacy to have a sculpture of their bust but those had to have been produced after the fact of most cases the features are not natural with the few who are ? Good Shit fellas I'm subbed
Hi Dan! Thank you for your channel. I am wondering if you can answer whether the idea of “the one” is an a priori assumption with Plato and philosophers (east and west). Has anyone attempted to develop a philosophy from a co-eternal coupling where the distinction between the “he” and “she” or the “positive” or “negative” is strictly maintained? Not in a dualist sense of argument or “strife”? It sure seems to me that this idea is always there, hidden in plain sight, but maybe it is the very unspoken and impenetrable aspect of the platonic one that somehow negates and forbids its inquiry. I find an attempt to do this with the christology of the church, using platonic language, but it cannot be seen for what it is because of the male dominance of the “conceptual” Father and Son. Thank you!
Very interesting and enjoyable video. But let me explain what the “Parmenides” is about, since no one has understood it for the last two millennia. First, someone invented the Third Man argument and the other criticisms. This probably wasn’t Plato, though scholars today take it for granted that it was. Second, no matter who invented it, it swept through the Academy (and maybe beyond) and led most people to conclude that Plato’s beloved forms do not exist. Third, Plato thought they were wrong to reach such a conclusion and insisted that the forms were necessary for thought and discourse and that someone bright enough would see that he was right. In other words, the “Parmenides” is reporting on a huge rift in the Academy between those who thought the Third Man was valid and those who thought it wasn’t. The evidence for all this begins at “Parmenides” 135a3-4, where we are told that, as a result of hearing these criticisms, “the hearer is perplexed and concludes that [the forms] do not exist.” A few lines later, we learn of Plato’s own reaction, which was to affirm the existence of forms. So, these lines show that there was a rift in the Academy, with most people thinking the Third Man was valid but with Plato dissenting. And notice that we aren’t told about the reaction of “some hearers” or even “the younger hearers”; instead, we are told about “the hearer’s” reaction, which makes it sound like it was extremely common. So, probably the most senior students in the Academy had this reaction, too. And we have some evidence that this was true because the most senior students in the Academy included Speusippus, Plato’s nephew. We know that Speusippus didn’t believe in the forms, and the scholar R.M. Dancy has argued (in an article entitled “Ancient Non-Beings”) that he accepted the Third Man. It is likely that Eudoxus accepted it, too, and he also rejected the forms (or at least their separate existence). And of course Aristotle rejected the forms and accepted the Third Man, though he was likely a very junior member of the Academy at the time when all of this commotion began. Notice, also, that in the “Republic,” which on the standard chronology comes before the “Parmenides,” we do not see any trace of powerful criticisms of the forms. At that time, Plato could get away with saying that those who rejected the forms were asleep rather than awake or living in a cave rather than the real world. So far I’ve been talking about Part I of the “Parmenides,” but as for Part II, it was probably intended to be the training for going through the “remote and laborious” argumentation that Plato referred to at 133b. Plato wanted to make his students better philosophers and would see that he was right about the Third Man. If that was its purpose, it didn’t work. Anyway, after the “Parmenides” Plato and his new critics must have had many debates on the existence of the forms. Things did not go so well for Plato, as the abandonment of a couple of trilogies suggests. A lot more could be said here, but suffice it to say that Aristotle talked of the Third Man’s being a valid argument against the forms as though it were commonly accepted (Plato, the main dissenter, by that time being dead). This brings me to Plotinus, Proclus, and others of that era who had no idea that this had happened. It seems that the information that the “Parmenides” was about a rift in the Academy had disappeared. The only clue was the obscure reference at 135a3-4 in the dialogue, and virtually everyone ignores those lines, or if they do pay attention, they don’t understand what Plato was getting at. But why did the information disappear? One could just as well ask why the name of the person who invented the Third Man has disappeared, or why the chronology disappeared. The Greeks did not seem interested in biography the way they were interested in history, with the result that the first biographies of Plato are from centuries later. Accordingly, lots of information disappeared, and what was left was the dialogues, and they are not very forthcoming about what was happening. (This is true not only in the late period, but earlier, for we are given no reason for why Socrates changed from someone professing ignorance to one who knows the truth about the ideal state.) So, it is understandable that Plotinus and the others did not have access to this information. John Pepple pepplej@kenyon.edu
Egyptian culture seems to be more related to Ethiopia then Jerusalem that was the place the King's of the Asia minor kingdom's had leadership skills aquired I think by the negotiations of goods and procedures in order for enriching themselves by making sales or middle man of Asian Dynamics far east not minor.
Dan , I really wanted to ask you. Did you read the Benjamin Jowett translation of Plato? And if so, should I read them in the order presented or should I go by his early to middle to late dialogues? Just wondering if you would wanna help me get into it. Thanks Man! Awesome Video BTW!
I don't have a specific translation when it comes to Plato. Sometimes I read in the original Greek, and other times I listen to audiobooks that capture the dialogue nature, and other times I read various translations from various centuries, so I don't have a specific translator to recommend here.
@@TheModernHermeticist Damn that's pretty cool. I remember watching a Professor speak about Plato with such high regard and yet he was questioning him the entire time. Its Not just what Plato says, but like how it made you feel and then also his intellect behind the dialogues. I Think I should go back through Charmides.
I will say that Hegel does think that he follows most closely in the steps of the Platonists than most. So he thinks there is Pure Being, and that Becoming is both itself, and in a certain sense more Being than Being, then at the end of the Doctrine of Being we find simply that Being is the refusal to be determined, hence is itself Becoming. Then further we find that the Idea is Being Reconstructed, and thus *is* in a purer sense than Pure Being, and then the same for Absolute Spirit. So at least to me it does seem that Hegel believes in "Ontological Graduations".
I loved this interview, enjoyed the parts going into emanationism and Iamblichus. You should check Edward P. Butler, hes written many papers on Platonisn and Neoplatonism as well as pagan theology :-)
You guys are just highlighting how much I don't know. Whoa. My background is Egyptology and I don't understand how they're making links to ancient Egypt. Where is the monism there?
@@rigulur It's amazing stuff. Trust me, had trouble with my attention span at first too but after a while i could just conceptualize a bigger idea of what the world is
@@rigulur i recommend you look into "Philosophize This: Plotinus" for a guy's 30 min explanation of his philosophy, or try reading the scriptures themselves
How do you know hindu philosophy isn't tainted by Greek philosophy? We don't know for sure, because the process the westerners translated it was incredibly sloppy that it became an amalgamation of different things: Greek philosophy, animinism, polytheism -- it all gets systematized and get called "Hinduism"
Where can one find the closest thing to a published 'complete works' of Mirandola and Ficino? No luck in searching thus far, unsure where to start. Mildly frustrating.
The mention of Pico’s idea about Man being the 10th Angel; Man being created to fill the void left by Satan - can you give me the reference? Where can I read more about this please?
So it's Joachim of Fiore who discusses this in the Psalterium Decem Chordarum (Psaltery of 10 Strings, i.e. 3x3+1), I just think Pico is tapping into similar types of pseudo-Dionysian currents.
Pico's ideas about angelomorphosis/metatron are contained in part in his Oration and in part in the 900 conclusions. I've got a reading the Oration here on the channel.
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
Please like, subscribe, and leave a comment before you retvrn to monke-- I mean the One.
As a Buddhist with platonic leanings I often reflect on on the similarities and contrasts between these two systems. In this regard I found Ellery Beard's three pillars or principles of Platonism very helpful. There are many Buddhist parallels with the 'self moving soul', and its journey to knowledge. The greatest contrast is in the area of ontology. There is no 'paradigmatic ontology' in Buddhism, rather what I would call rather awkwardly an 'aggregation ontology'. In the Buddhist cosmos there are three great spheres or levels of existence: karma loka, rupa loka, arupa loka. That is the worlds of desire, pure form and very subtle 'formless form'. Nirvana is simply the cessation of, or escape from, all of that! There is no descending chain of causality responsible for any of these levels, they simply arise from the collective karma of living beings. In other words if you practice hard and habitually experience meditation states of pure form, it is said you will after death find yourself hanging out with a bunch of other similar beings. Such a group of godlike beings are said to project a shared world or sphere of existence, of apparent objectivity, which is experienced as a realm of pure forms. Aeons later you might all degenerate and find yourselves back in a shared karma loka like planet earth, but that's another story… And that's it really, disappointingly there is no chain of being as such, and there are no eternal Forms. Questions that might occur to a platonist such as what are these pure forms? What faculty of the mind allows one to experience them? Are not entertained. A concentrated, ethically pure mind sees pure - visionary, or heavenly forms. That is all you need to know - says the Buddha. In the arupa loka you do experience various very subtle, albeit impermanent states of, for example, 'infinite consciousness', which sound a bit like the sphere of Intellect in Plotinus, but they have no ontological status from 'their own side', so to speak. Only Nirvana is permanent of course, and that by definition has no form. Yet, putting aside metaphysics, in the area of symbology we find in the Mahayana and Vajrayana many archetypal Buddhas, such as Amitabha - Buddha of infinite light who, while one in essence, are provisionally distinguished in qualities, and have various symbolic connections with different aspects of the material world. Together with the ritual and visualisation practices that evoke them, this all sounds rather like Theurgy...
I would add briefly that emanation in the Platonic "Chain of Being" is not "causal" in the way we conceptualize it as a process. Emanation is _instant_ and eternal overflow, and it "flows" like light through filters; we could say that the flow through filters (e.g. embodiment) is what constitutes _consubstantiality._ The emanation from the Intellect, which is simultaneously an "intelligible intellecting activity," is not causality in space or time.
We could make a kind of bridge, then, with the later developments of the Buddha Dhamma in Zen, where the latter is much more aligned with Plotinus. The original Buddhist doctrines (e.g. the Noble Eightfold Path) by Guatama himself - if we look into the original Pali Canon and amend the bad English translations - prescribes a rigorous method or step by step process that is _very_ similar to Iamblichus' theurgy.
The similarities and overlaps are bound to be their seeing as both the platonic and Buddhists traditions undoubtedly stem from a common archaic tradition held by the protoindoeuropeans that spread these theological systems and philosophies all over the world. Great stuff
I was screaming in my head the whole time, “lloyd gerson, lloyd gerson!” and was so pleased when he went there. I hope you can get him on one day, he may be the greatest living Platonist.
Absolutely fascinating. As a Catholic, I realise how much I don't know about the depths of our theology, which has developed from a synthesis of Judaism's cosmology with Graeco-Roman philosophy. Thank you for posting this and please keep it up!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Well said
Hello fellow Cathbro
Exactly what I wanted to listen to this evening, well timed!
I could recommend another potential interviewee Radek Chlup is the author of an extremely lucid and revealing introduction to Proclus, published by Cambridge university press. I would love to hear his views on developments of neoplatonism after Plotinus.
Thank you for finally taking Parmenides seriously.
If I had a dollar for every time I said that lol cheers to you!
Agreed. In that vein, I care not how educated a person may be since their opinion about any philosopher is worth, after adding fifty cents to it, half-a-buck to me.
It's just their opinion.
Just bought the Enneads, haven't read it yet. Thanks for your work!
Please make the two of you discussing Platonism a regular thing
A really fascinating discussion thank you so much guys.
This just made my day ❤️
Really superb discussion. Much to chew on. Thank you, gentlemen.
🙏
One thing that divides Old Academy platonism from Middle platonism and from neoplatonism is the fact that the academies were different institutions there were breaks inbetween... therfore it is possible that oral doctrine (clearly important to ancient people and Plato) could easily be lost with each break in the 'Academy'
Great that he mentioned Mulla Sadra!
Wonderful dialog! I wish there were more good conversations on Neoplatonism!
If you haven't checked it out, Dr. Justin Sledge and I recently did a swapcast on some of the crossroads between Kabbalah and Neoplatonism: th-cam.com/video/OaY_znUkN3k/w-d-xo.html
Yes lad. Will be watching later for sureee
31:03 The Crucial Question.
The thought of Plotinus finds its completion in the Indian religions.
How have I just found this channel now? Giving Glitch Bottle a run for its money, that's for sure. Cheers, and well done indeed.
Nice, if you like Glitchbottle I think Alex and I have three swapcasts already, you can find them either on his page or mine. Cheers.
Pure awesome! Excellent stuff!
Fascinating stuff! As always!
Enjoyed the talk. Thank you .
Glad you enjoyed it
Brilliant
Please do more talks about emanationism/Plotinus and Platonism.
Good talk. A bit over my head
Great information. Thank you
I wrote a Neoplatonist Catholic book called Ratio Gloriae which resurrects the Augustinian view. Def should check it out!
Ty
Soul = Integrated Psyche (Heart, Mind, Will).
We are here to transform our temporal caterpillar Psyche (lead) into an Eternal Butterfly Soul (Gold), by alchemically integrating our Heart (sulphur), Mind (mercury), and Will (salt).
When the Heart aspires, the Mind inquires and the Will conspires (combines).
Principle: Reality (That which is)
Attribute: Absolute (All-inclusive)
Potential = Being
Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Matter = Activity
We actualize potential by dreaming our experience and experiencing our dream.
Since only Creative Intelligence can either affirm or deny that That which is, either is or is not Creative Intelligence, That which is, is Creative Intelligence.
Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself.
Love is the recognition of our shared Being.
Reality functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse.
Since potential for actualization is Infinite, actualization of potential is Eternal, for only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
It is identification with the temporal that blocks awareness of the presence of the Eternal within the temporal. We are not a drop in the ocean, we are the ocean in a drop.
The Word of Truth that is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality (That which is), incarnates (manifests) as the metaphorical Light of Wisdom and Understanding unto the darkness of ignorance and folly; yet those dwelling in the darkness of their ignorance comprehended not the meaning of the metaphorical Word of truth and continued in their justification of literalism.
Very good. Thank you.
🙏
Great channel
Neoplatonism is Platonism, some aristotleanism Pythogorean Monism, Chaldean Theurgy and Egyptian teachings in one.
"In fact, one must not try to discover where he comes from. For there is not any ‘where’; he neither comes from nor goes anywhere, he both appears and does not appear. For this reason, it is necessary not to pursue him, but to remain in stillness, until he should appear, preparing oneself to be a contemplator, just like the eye awaits the rising sun.
The sun rising over the horizon - the poets say ‘from Ocean’ - gives himself to be seen with the eyes."
Plotinian Grace.
I get why if Iamblichus is favored/correct Plotinus's approach is wrong but is this also true the other way around? Couldn't you just add ritual to your contemplation?
I think forms can be associated with four elements at their fundamental level
Go Dan!
perhaps you could get Gregory Shaw on. Great talk as always.
You ever think about the times and all these people were literate and had influence but where were the libraries? And the private libraries, books must've been a fortune to acquire unless you're in the cults who had a pot to pitch in and buy books or favor to make introduction to these people who where most likely funded by or cared for by Royalty who thirsted for knowledge while other's interested in materialistic fashion art music and legacy to have a sculpture of their bust but those had to have been produced after the fact of most cases the features are not natural with the few who are ? Good Shit fellas I'm subbed
Hi Dan! Thank you for your channel. I am wondering if you can answer whether the idea of “the one” is an a priori assumption with Plato and philosophers (east and west).
Has anyone attempted to develop a philosophy from a co-eternal coupling where the distinction between the “he” and “she” or the “positive” or “negative” is strictly maintained? Not in a dualist sense of argument or “strife”?
It sure seems to me that this idea is always there, hidden in plain sight, but maybe it is the very unspoken and impenetrable aspect of the platonic one that somehow negates and forbids its inquiry.
I find an attempt to do this with the christology of the church, using platonic language, but it cannot be seen for what it is because of the male dominance of the “conceptual” Father and Son.
Thank you!
Very interesting and enjoyable video.
But let me explain what the “Parmenides” is about, since no one has understood it for the last two millennia. First, someone invented the Third Man argument and the other criticisms. This probably wasn’t Plato, though scholars today take it for granted that it was. Second, no matter who invented it, it swept through the Academy (and maybe beyond) and led most people to conclude that Plato’s beloved forms do not exist. Third, Plato thought they were wrong to reach such a conclusion and insisted that the forms were necessary for thought and discourse and that someone bright enough would see that he was right.
In other words, the “Parmenides” is reporting on a huge rift in the Academy between those who thought the Third Man was valid and those who thought it wasn’t.
The evidence for all this begins at “Parmenides” 135a3-4, where we are told that, as a result of hearing these criticisms, “the hearer is perplexed and concludes that [the forms] do not exist.” A few lines later, we learn of Plato’s own reaction, which was to affirm the existence of forms.
So, these lines show that there was a rift in the Academy, with most people thinking the Third Man was valid but with Plato dissenting. And notice that we aren’t told about the reaction of “some hearers” or even “the younger hearers”; instead, we are told about “the hearer’s” reaction, which makes it sound like it was extremely common. So, probably the most senior students in the Academy had this reaction, too.
And we have some evidence that this was true because the most senior students in the Academy included Speusippus, Plato’s nephew. We know that Speusippus didn’t believe in the forms, and the scholar R.M. Dancy has argued (in an article entitled “Ancient Non-Beings”) that he accepted the Third Man. It is likely that Eudoxus accepted it, too, and he also rejected the forms (or at least their separate existence). And of course Aristotle rejected the forms and accepted the Third Man, though he was likely a very junior member of the Academy at the time when all of this commotion began.
Notice, also, that in the “Republic,” which on the standard chronology comes before the “Parmenides,” we do not see any trace of powerful criticisms of the forms. At that time, Plato could get away with saying that those who rejected the forms were asleep rather than awake or living in a cave rather than the real world.
So far I’ve been talking about Part I of the “Parmenides,” but as for Part II, it was probably intended to be the training for going through the “remote and laborious” argumentation that Plato referred to at 133b. Plato wanted to make his students better philosophers and would see that he was right about the Third Man. If that was its purpose, it didn’t work.
Anyway, after the “Parmenides” Plato and his new critics must have had many debates on the existence of the forms. Things did not go so well for Plato, as the abandonment of a couple of trilogies suggests. A lot more could be said here, but suffice it to say that Aristotle talked of the Third Man’s being a valid argument against the forms as though it were commonly accepted (Plato, the main dissenter, by that time being dead).
This brings me to Plotinus, Proclus, and others of that era who had no idea that this had happened. It seems that the information that the “Parmenides” was about a rift in the Academy had disappeared. The only clue was the obscure reference at 135a3-4 in the dialogue, and virtually everyone ignores those lines, or if they do pay attention, they don’t understand what Plato was getting at.
But why did the information disappear? One could just as well ask why the name of the person who invented the Third Man has disappeared, or why the chronology disappeared. The Greeks did not seem interested in biography the way they were interested in history, with the result that the first biographies of Plato are from centuries later. Accordingly, lots of information disappeared, and what was left was the dialogues, and they are not very forthcoming about what was happening. (This is true not only in the late period, but earlier, for we are given no reason for why Socrates changed from someone professing ignorance to one who knows the truth about the ideal state.) So, it is understandable that Plotinus and the others did not have access to this information.
John Pepple
pepplej@kenyon.edu
wow, I am having such a hard time imagining not subscribing to nominalism.
🙏
Egyptian culture seems to be more related to Ethiopia then Jerusalem that was the place the King's of the Asia minor kingdom's had leadership skills aquired I think by the negotiations of goods and procedures in order for enriching themselves by making sales or middle man of Asian Dynamics far east not minor.
Dan , I really wanted to ask you. Did you read the Benjamin Jowett translation of Plato? And if so, should I read them in the order presented or should I go by his early to middle to late dialogues?
Just wondering if you would wanna help me get into it. Thanks Man! Awesome Video BTW!
I don't have a specific translation when it comes to Plato. Sometimes I read in the original Greek, and other times I listen to audiobooks that capture the dialogue nature, and other times I read various translations from various centuries, so I don't have a specific translator to recommend here.
@@TheModernHermeticist Damn that's pretty cool. I remember watching a Professor speak about Plato with such high regard and yet he was questioning him the entire time. Its Not just what Plato says, but like how it made you feel and then also his intellect behind the dialogues. I Think I should go back through Charmides.
@@TheModernHermeticist Btw Im Loving Your work on Ficino.
The motionless earth with the firmament above is not even a debate any longer. Centrifugal Force is not suspended on any grander scale.
can you come up with an even dumber remark?
I will say that Hegel does think that he follows most closely in the steps of the Platonists than most. So he thinks there is Pure Being, and that Becoming is both itself, and in a certain sense more Being than Being, then at the end of the Doctrine of Being we find simply that Being is the refusal to be determined, hence is itself Becoming. Then further we find that the Idea is Being Reconstructed, and thus *is* in a purer sense than Pure Being, and then the same for Absolute Spirit. So at least to me it does seem that Hegel believes in "Ontological Graduations".
I loved this interview, enjoyed the parts going into emanationism and Iamblichus. You should check Edward P. Butler, hes written many papers on Platonisn and Neoplatonism as well as pagan theology :-)
You guys are just highlighting how much I don't know. Whoa. My background is Egyptology and I don't understand how they're making links to ancient Egypt. Where is the monism there?
Intellectual property is like knowing people or having a business relationship with people of a different culture?
intellectual property is when disney owns mickey mouse
Ellery didn't give much away from starters but did well nonetheless.
Whoa
Aohw
Ta Dan x
Is Mr. Beard publishing any works on his area of interest?
"Plotinus is Aristotle with plato stacked on top"... 👍
And a little stoicism thrown in for good measure.
idk what anyone is saying but maybe itll make more sense if i finish the video
aight still mostly didnt get it so ill come back when im more learned on these things
@@rigulur It's amazing stuff. Trust me, had trouble with my attention span at first too but after a while i could just conceptualize a bigger idea of what the world is
@@rigulur i recommend you look into "Philosophize This: Plotinus" for a guy's 30 min explanation of his philosophy, or try reading the scriptures themselves
Marble clay and brick to stone?
Gentlemen! Please study a little advaita vedanta - it's BY FAR the most superior 'philosophy' ever discovered!
How do you know hindu philosophy isn't tainted by Greek philosophy? We don't know for sure, because the process the westerners translated it was incredibly sloppy that it became an amalgamation of different things: Greek philosophy, animinism, polytheism -- it all gets systematized and get called "Hinduism"
nah
Where can one find the closest thing to a published 'complete works' of Mirandola and Ficino? No luck in searching thus far, unsure where to start. Mildly frustrating.
32:00
The mention of Pico’s idea about Man being the 10th Angel; Man being created to fill the void left by Satan - can you give me the reference? Where can I read more about this please?
So it's Joachim of Fiore who discusses this in the Psalterium Decem Chordarum (Psaltery of 10 Strings, i.e. 3x3+1), I just think Pico is tapping into similar types of pseudo-Dionysian currents.
@@TheModernHermeticist thank you, where does Pico mention it? Where could I research this further please?
Pico's ideas about angelomorphosis/metatron are contained in part in his Oration and in part in the 900 conclusions. I've got a reading the Oration here on the channel.
Kaneh bossom
lies you mean? U the broken O stand under me? Under Heaven?
You mean “plotty” and play dough? Warriors! You have hell to pay