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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: What's the fuss all about ?

Expand Messages
  • a b
    Dear Mike, ... Do you happen to know the exact reference to this Commentary ? It must be very interesting. ... but ... I can’t speak of the supreme
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mike,

      >        There is also a deeper answer, latent in
      > Plotinus and given full
      > expression in Porphyry (or whoever), Commentary on
      > the Parmenides.

      Do you happen to know the exact reference to this
      Commentary ? It must be very interesting.

      > The supreme principle is indeed *almosrt* perfect,
      > not quite, for it
      > lacks self-consciousness. To achieve such
      > self-consciousness, it must
      > alienate itself from itself (proodos, soul, life)
      > and return
      > (epistrophe, intellect). It is therefore not true
      > that there is no
      > added value in the process : the inestimable added
      > value is that the
      > supreme principle achieves self-consciousness. I
      > think I've mentioned
      > before in this forum that this idea is found in any
      > number of
      > subsequent thinkers, from Ibn Arabi to Hegel, and
      > compare the Islamic
      > hadith : I was a hidden treasure and I longed to be
      > known.

      I can’t speak of the supreme principle but it seems
      that at least demiurge is self-conscious, at least if
      I get the exact meaning of someone being

      Proclus in his commentary in Parmenides says in 790.15
      “But if it knows itself (gignOskon eauto), that is
      knows itself as a cause, then it knows also the
      things of which it is the cause and will therefore
      contain the things which it knows” ( Dilllon, page 161
      and also in 958.24 “..and by knowing itself alone
      knows all other things”. ( Dillon, page 308 )

      So if demiurge is self-conscious, can we say the same
      for the upper levels up to the One ?

      Best Regards,


      Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
    • vaeringjar
      ... idea ... and ... or ... but ... defined ... finite ... A most interesting argument that I had never heard before, but then I know almost nothing, I am sad
      Message 34 of 34 , Oct 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Bob Wallace <philosop@...> wrote:
        > felt like doing. What's wrong with this notion? It's the idea that
        > something could _be_ "God," could be perfect and self-sufficient,
        > without being in relation to an actual finite world. Why is this
        > mistaken? It's mistaken because perfection and self-sufficiency are
        > contrast terms. They're the "opposite" of imperfect and
        > un-self-sufficient. So that the being that's described as perfect
        > self-sufficient, gets its definition from its relation to what is
        > imperfect and un-self-sufficient. But that means that through his
        > her very _definition_, the conventional "God" depends upon a
        > relationship to what's imperfect and non-self-sufficient. And that
        > means that the conventional "God" simply isn't self-sufficient! The
        > conventional "God" fails to be what he or she is supposed to be.
        > What's to be done about this? We need to conceive of God, Hegel
        > suggests, not through a contrast which makes God fail to be God,
        > through an Identity. God will be the finite world's self-overcoming
        > (self-transcendence). Understood in this way, God will not be
        > by his or her relation to what he or she _isn't_; instead, God will
        > be defined by what he or she _is_, namely, the finite world
        > (surpassing itself). So this God will escape the the conventional
        > "God"'s fate of being rendered non-self-sufficient by its own
        > definition. But this God will also escape the finite world's
        > imperfection and non-self-sufficiency, because this God is the
        > world's self-_surpassing_ (self-transcendence): its passage into
        > infiniteness. So in both respects, God will be perfect and
        > self-sufficient, after all. This is the "true infinity."

        A most interesting argument that I had never heard before, but then I
        know almost nothing, I am sad to say, about Hegel, though there a
        number of books upstairs that would perhaps help remedy that if I
        ever get to them.

        This locks creator with created and vice-versa rather tightly
        together, doesn't it? Rather as does the argument about dynamis or
        potential that I was probably not all that lucidly trying to make
        here lately.

        Thanks for sharing this - I need to consider it more.

        Dennis Clark
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.