• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What does GAF think of Neoplatonism? (Philosophy)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kad5

Member
Neoplatonism:

Neoplatonism (also called Neo-Platonism) (Greek: Νεοπλατωνισμός), is the modern term for a school of mystical philosophy that took shape in the 3rd century CE, based on the teachings of Plato and earlier Platonists, with its earliest contributor believed to be Plotinus, and his teacher Ammonius Saccas. Neoplatonism focused on the spiritual and cosmological aspects of Platonic thought, synthesizing Platonism with Egyptian[1] and Jewish theology.[2] However, Neoplatonists would have considered themselves simply Platonists, and the modern distinction is due to the perception that their philosophy contained sufficiently unique interpretations of Plato to make it substantially different from what Plato wrote and believed.[3]

...

Neoplatonism is generally a religious philosophy. Neoplatonism is a form of idealistic monism (also called theistic monism) and combines elements of Polytheism (see Monistic-polytheism).
Although the founder of Neoplatonism is supposed to have been Ammonius Saccas, the Enneads of his pupil Plotinus are the primary and classical document of Neoplatonism. As a form of mysticism, it contains theoretical and practical parts, the first dealing with the high origin of the human soul showing how it has departed from its first estate, and the second showing the way by which the soul may again return to the Eternal and Supreme. The system can be divided between the invisible world and the phenomenal world, the former containing the transcendent One from which emanates an eternal, perfect, essence (nous), which, in turn, produces the world-soul.

Obviously there is more in the link. For me this school of thought has definitely influenced some of my spiritual beliefs in conjunction with buddhist and sufi philosophies.
 
As a form of mysticism,

Here we go...

it contains theoretical and practical parts, the first dealing with the high origin of the human soul

Prove we have a soul. Then prove it necessitates a "high orgin." Also, define both.

showing how it has departed from its first estate,

Prove the soul had a "first estate." Then prove it "departed" a first estate. Also, define both.

and the second showing the way by which the soul may again return to the Eternal and Supreme.

Prove there's an "Eternal." Prove there's a "Supreme." Explicate how the soul "returns." Also, define all three.

The system can be divided between the invisible world and the phenomenal world, the former containing the transcendent One from which emanates an eternal, perfect, essence (nous), which, in turn, produces the world-soul.

Prove the existence of an "invisible world." Prove the existence of a "transcendent One." Prove the existence of perfect "essence." Define all three.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I always thought of it as an example of the religiously-inclined greatly misunderstanding the intentions of a secular philosopher who was just floating some ideas out there (Plato).... but I admit that there might be some spiritual understanding of it that I have yet to know....
 

Fugu

Member
I've had at least a few people call me Platonic before, but this is not what they were talking about.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Tell me Kad5... what is it that you think you're getting out of this stuff that you can't find from secular sources?

Personally, I think there's a great deal of unexplored spiritual fufillment in secular sources - just that the language doesn't really mesh up, because spirituality in its most literal sense is a bunk concept secularly speaking.

That said, there's plenty of mind and individual fufillment to be had... and I often use the term soul to describe a person's 'essential essence' - which more literally translates as - core philosophical principles.

I mean... I don't think I'll be changing your mind, and I don't mean to come off confrontationally - but I'm just curious to know what you've explored that lead you down this path - whether or not what you think you are getting out of it is available in other forms that doesn't require nebulous concepts found in mysticism and spiritualism.
 
Its a religion disguised as philosophy, and was one of the many bridge religions during the long and bloody transition between classical pagan gods to Abrahamic religions in the west. It sounds like it gets more play because someone decided to put Plato's name on it.
 

beastmode

Member
It seems like a bunch of odd, unprovable gibberish. I say this as someone sympathetic to Buddhism.

I don't find much value in philosophy that isn't rooted in the Enlightenment.
 

Kad5

Member
Well what I personally get out of it is Panentheism. Everything derives from a common infinite source. Recent findings in Quantum Mechanics actually seem to suggest that's true. That all things emanate from a common origin. It's also similar to Spinoza's God.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Well what I personally get out of it is Panentheism. Everything derives from a common infinite source. Recent findings in Quantum Mechanics actually seem to suggest that's true. That all things emanate from a common origin. It's also similar to Spinoza's God.

For a given value of true. Semantics and the way we think about ideas allow us to take plenty of concepts and slap them down in vague venn diagrams that contain plenty of overlapping space because of the impreciseness of the human mind (and that's certainly not a bad thing)
 

Kad5

Member
For a given value of true. Semantics and the way we think about ideas allow us to take plenty of concepts and slap them down in vague venn diagrams that contain plenty of overlapping space because of the impreciseness of the human mind (and that's certainly not a bad thing)

Yeah I get that. I mean the way I see it is that if i'm able to integrate these in a way that is compatible with science then I don't see an issue.


What's wrong with me viewing God as math or science? Again, it's semantics. I view God as something that should be beautiful. Math and the universe are very beautiful.
 

GungHo

Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
I think it's an ice cream for indecisive people.
 
Yeah I get that. I mean the way I see it is that if i'm able to integrate these in a way that is compatible with science then I don't see an issue.


What's wrong with me viewing God as math or science? Again, it's semantics. I view God as something that should be beautiful. Math and the universe are very beautiful.

Because you're seeing God of the Gaps.
 

Oppo

Member
Yeah I get that. I mean the way I see it is that if i'm able to integrate these in a way that is compatible with science then I don't see an issue.


What's wrong with me viewing God as math or science? Again, it's semantics. I view God as something that should be beautiful. Math and the universe are very beautiful.

Well then you're just being a bit confusing with your language.

I can't help but read "integrate" above as "shoehorn".
 
Neoplatonism and ancient Christian Gnosticism go hand-in-hand. The evil and vile demiurge of Genesis, fooling humanity into thinking he is the "true" God while a more distant and all-encompassing supreme being remains unapproachable except through "gnosis".
 

Kad5

Member
Yeah and Batman was one of the first empiricists.

From the idealism article:

With the neoplatonist Plotinus, wrote Nathaniel Alfred Boll; "there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught… that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time…".

.
 

Kad5

Member
Neoplatonism and ancient Christian Gnosticism go hand-in-hand. The evil and vile demiurge of Genesis, fooling humanity into thinking he is the "true" God while a more distant and all-encompassing supreme being remains unapproachable except through "gnosis".

Actually there is a major difference between the two. Gnosticism implies the physical world is inherently evil and sinful. Neo-platonists disagree and do not think the physical world is inherently evil. Just imperfect.
 
Actually there is a major difference between the two. Gnosticism implies the physical world is inherently evil and sinful. Neo-platonists disagree and do not think the physical world is inherently evil. Just imperfect.

Oh definitely (although some Gnostics, like the predominant Valentian Gnostics, thought there were some "good" aspects to the demiurge). But they were born out of the same post-Platonic/Christian philosophical movement - a fucked up dualistic system of soul vs. body that poisoned the Western mind into thinking we're just "visiting" the earth. (Just my opinion, of course)
 

Kad5

Member
Oh definitely (although some Gnostics, like the predominant Valentian Gnostics, thought there were some "good" aspects to the demiurge). But they were born out of the same post-Platonic/Christian philosophical movement - a fucked up dualistic system of soul vs. body that poisoned the Western mind into thinking we're just "visiting" the earth. (Just my opinion, of course)

Yeah definitely. I don't understand why some people are so against me talking about metaphysical philosophy. These aren't bad things to ponder about. There is more to things than our material reality. Also, I always found it interesting that almost every spiritual belief has some kind of theme of monism.

That all things derive from One as an infinite concept. I can also tie these ideas to mathematics.
 
Yeah definitely. I don't understand why some people are so against me talking about metaphysical philosophy. These aren't bad things to ponder about. There is more to things than our material reality. Also, I always found it interesting that almost every spiritual belief has some kind of theme of monism.

That all things derive from One as an infinite concept. I can also tie these ideas to mathematics.
Likely, they are against the conversation because they don't think there's more to things than our material reality.
 

pigeon

Banned
Yeah definitely. I don't understand why some people are so against me talking about metaphysical philosophy. These aren't bad things to ponder about. There is more to things than our material reality. Also, I always found it interesting that almost every spiritual belief has some kind of theme of monism.

That all things derive from One as an infinite concept. I can also tie these ideas to mathematics.

Talking about religion is going to draw criticism, the same as talking about guns or tipping.

Seems interesting to me, but I agree that this is more declaratively different from Gnosticism than practically.
 
Yeah definitely. I don't understand why some people are so against me talking about metaphysical philosophy. These aren't bad things to ponder about. There is more to things than our material reality. Also, I always found it interesting that almost every spiritual belief has some kind of theme of monism.

That all things derive from One as an infinite concept. I can also tie these ideas to mathematics.

You have nearly 2,000 posts here.

When you decided to create this thread, some part of you had to know that the conversation was going to be like this.
 
I think that the only significant ancient thinker who had a reasonably agreeable worldview was Democritus. (And Plato hated Democritus!)

Neoplatonism has nice ideas, they just aren't true. Clearly. It's a totally rationalistic and unscientific view of the universe. Not one there's much reason to adhere to in this day and age.

Edit: Why is quantum theory never treated properly by philosophy? There's nothing mystical about quantum physics. Its debunking of materialism really just means, to me, a shift towards naturalism as a more solid position -- the rejection of anything supernatural. Thus many of the implications of materialism remain valid.

And while determinism is another casualty of quantum physics, many of the implications of determinism, foremost the impossibility of free will, also remain, because free will cannot possibly be random.

Then again, I am no philosopher.
 

Kisaya

Member
Neoplatonism fascinated me a great deal when it was brought up in my art history class. I remember not understanding it at all back in high school when we were discussing Plato’s Cave, but after revisiting it in college it was much more clearer. I think it's an interesting way to look at life, where reality and what we actually see are representations of an idea that exists in world beyond our reach.

It was also fascinating to me how the people in the Renaissance connected this to Christianity, believing that what was "real" existed in the divine. I remember how it was brought up that in earlier times it was believed that the soul was trapped in the body, which was viewed as tainted and sinful. The artist Michelangelo however rejected this view, explaining that the body was the expression of your soul, which makes it closest to the divine. Pretty much why most of Michelangelo's works are full of exaggerated bodies.

I also love Neoplatonic art, this piece especially. Once you analyze it you appreciate it a lot more than how pretty it looks.
 

1. The information you've linked to suggests an indeterminate number of scientists and "science writers" feel that quantum mechanics provides a definitive refutation of materialism. The number of scientists is indeterminate because the meaning of the quantifier "some" ranges from a single entity to all entities; thus, we have no idea how many scientists are being referred to. And this means the information comes nowhere near "gradually suggesting" anything at all!

2. Even if a significant proportion of scientists felt that quantum mechanics undermined materialism, this wouldn't necessarily mean that quantum mechanics undermines materialism. A majority of psychologists at one time felt that behaviorism was an adequate theory for explaining mental phenomena, but this fact had no bearing on whether behaviorism was actually adequate or not.

3. Regarding materialism's truth or falsehood, I think the discussion cannot advance until you tell us what you mean by 'materialism'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom