Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

noetic noeric

Expand Messages
  • dhartjes
    I am studying Proclus Commentary on Plato s Timaeus and I am trying to figure out what exactly means acting intelligibly or intellectually. Any hints or help
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 23 10:37 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I am studying Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Timaeus
      and I am trying to figure out what exactly means
      acting intelligibly or intellectually.
      Any hints or help will be mostly appreciated.

      > Not sure what the specific context in the Timaeus commentary is
      here,nor the significance of "acting" in that same context, but my
      general understanding, such as it is, of the difference be-
      tween "intelligible" and "intellectual" is in one sense that
      of "subject of thought" versus "agent of thought". "Intelligibles"
      are objects of intellection, though they are very specific and high
      level elements conceived of in Neoplatonism, especially later
      Neoplatonism, as the main objects of intellection in this
      philosophical context, so we are not talking about just any old
      random or personal thought here.
      That's my amateur understanding, I hope it helps and is accurate.

      Dennis Clark

      The noetic gods act noetically because that is their proper domain
      while the noeric gods act noerically since that is THEIR proper
      domain and on account of the Timaeus being a creation story that
      would be my guess as to the context of what those acts might be.
      Dan Hartjes
    • banno8
      as i see it, not speaking as an expert, intelligible means in a rational manner or in a manner that can be understood whereas intellectually means acting
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 23 11:33 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        as i see it, not speaking as an expert, "intelligible" means in a rational manner or in a manner that can be understood whereas "intellectually" means acting in a manner using the mind or the capacity of thought.

        vaeringjar <vaeringjar@...> wrote:
        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, a b <ath98xyz@...> wrote:
        >
        > I am studying Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Timaeus
        > and I am trying to figure out what exactly means
        > acting intelligibly or intellectually.
        >
        > Any hints or help will be mostly appreciated.
        >
        > Thanks and Regards,
        >
        > George
        >

        Not sure what the specific context in the Timaeus commentary is here,
        nor the significance of "acting" in that same context, but my general
        understanding, such as it is, of the difference
        between "intelligible" and "intellectual" is in one sense that
        of "subject of thought" versus "agent of thought". "Intelligibles"
        are objects of intellection, though they are very specific and high
        level elements conceived of in Neoplatonism, especially later
        Neoplatonism, as the main objects of intellection in this
        philosophical context, so we are not talking about just any old
        random or personal thought here.

        That's my amateur understanding, I hope it helps and is accurate.

        Dennis Clark






        ---------------------------------
        Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
        Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • a b
        Thank you Dennis. I do not have access to this work, I will try to find if this article can be purchased separetely. Regards, George ...
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 24 10:32 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you Dennis. I do not have access to this work, I
          will try to find if this article can be purchased
          separetely.

          Regards,

          George


          --- vaeringjar <vaeringjar@...> wrote:

          > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, a b
          > <ath98xyz@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Thank you Dennis for your reply.
          > >
          > > I do not have all my notes handy now. The only one
          > I
          > > can quote now is from Book 2, 433.26 - 434.5 where
          > it
          > > says that Phanes appears noerically in the noetic
          > > order.
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > >
          > > George
          > >
          >
          > Oh, in that case I would refer you to Luc Brisson's
          > extremely helpful
          > article "Proclus et l'Orphisme", in <Proclus.
          > Lecteur et interprète
          > des Anciens> Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S.,
          > Paris (éd. du
          > C.N.R.S.) 1987, p. 43-104, where he gives a
          > comprehensive view of how
          > the Orphic gods including Phanes fit into the
          > Neoplatonic schema
          > observed by Proclus. At least I think it's a good
          > place to start. I
          > will try to take a look at his piece and see if
          > Brisson refers
          > specifically to that passage in the Tim. commentary.
          >
          >
          > Dennis Clark
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.