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

Philosophical role of beauty in Plato

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    Howdy folks, In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy folks,

      In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper

      http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1031165/Philosophical_role_of_beauty_in_Plato

      It deals mainly with Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. This one's a little experimental, loose and free-form...

      Comments, feedback, and suggestions are of course most appreciated, via this list or e-mail, or messenger. (and thanks all for the encourageing response to the previous paper).

      Mark
    • robin friedman
      I just read a new book by Richard Woods, OP, Meister Eckhart: Master of Mystics by Richard Woods, OP.  Woods is a past chairman of the Eckhart Society. 
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I just read a new book by Richard Woods, OP, "Meister Eckhart: Master of Mystics" by Richard Woods, OP.  Woods is a past chairman of the Eckhart Society.  The book includes 12 essays on various aspects of Meister Eckhart's thought.  Throughout the book, especially in an essay titled, "The Thinker's Way to God:Meister Eckhart and the Neoplatonic Heritage"  Woods emphasizes the strongly Neoplatonic character of Eckhart's writings, beginning with Plato and continuing through Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and Alexandrian Christian thinkers.  Eckhart never mentions Plotinus by name, but I agree with Woods that the Meister's thought is Neoplatonic as opposed, say, to Aristotelian. Many spiritually inclined people of various denominations, or no denominations at all, still find Eckhart an important spiritual teacher. Neoplatonism through him, and others, is still much alive.
        --- On Sat, 10/8/11, Mark <marcusaurelius09@...> wrote:


        From: Mark <marcusaurelius09@...>
        Subject: [neoplatonism] Philosophical role of beauty in Plato
        To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 3:33 PM



         



        Howdy folks,

        In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper

        http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1031165/Philosophical_role_of_beauty_in_Plato

        It deals mainly with Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. This one's a little experimental, loose and free-form...

        Comments, feedback, and suggestions are of course most appreciated, via this list or e-mail, or messenger. (and thanks all for the encourageing response to the previous paper).

        Mark








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Thomas Mether
        While I agree he is Neoplatonist, whether or not Eckhart is Aristotelian (or Thomist, actually, plus there is also the question of whether Thomism itself is a
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 18, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          While I agree he is Neoplatonist, whether or not Eckhart is Aristotelian (or Thomist, actually, plus there is also the question of whether Thomism itself is a form of Neoplatonism)) or not would hinge on the interpretation of his "my I am is I AM" or my "I is God's I" or "my isness is God's isness" in relation to the Thomist treatment of esse. In light of John of the Cross, the question is more pertinent about Eckhart since inwardly for John, so to speak, the very core of subjectivity is the interiority of esse. Esse viewed from the outside, as it were, is God's gift of "to be" proportioned to all essences. So each essence uniquely _is_ uniquely. If an essence such as a human being is essentially and actually the animated interiority of an animated body, then it seems (contrary to Gilson) that there is a mystical and Augustinian line running from Thomas to Eckhart and Juan de la Cruz where the esse conferred upon an essence is experienced as God's I
          given to the creature's I as its very existence. I am because of that I AM, so to speak. In terms of Eckhart, this was a line of thought explored some years back by C.F. Kelley and Reiner Schurmann. In terms of John of the Cross, that line was developed by me in unpublished work that was delivered in conferences to Catholic audiences. 

          From: robin friedman <rbnfriedman@...>
          To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:40 PM
          Subject: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart


           

          I just read a new book by Richard Woods, OP, "Meister Eckhart: Master of Mystics" by Richard Woods, OP.  Woods is a past chairman of the Eckhart Society.  The book includes 12 essays on various aspects of Meister Eckhart's thought.  Throughout the book, especially in an essay titled, "The Thinker's Way to God:Meister Eckhart and the Neoplatonic Heritage"  Woods emphasizes the strongly Neoplatonic character of Eckhart's writings, beginning with Plato and continuing through Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and Alexandrian Christian thinkers.  Eckhart never mentions Plotinus by name, but I agree with Woods that the Meister's thought is Neoplatonic as opposed, say, to Aristotelian. Many spiritually inclined people of various denominations, or no denominations at all, still find Eckhart an important spiritual teacher. Neoplatonism through him, and others, is still much alive.
          --- On Sat, 10/8/11, Mark <marcusaurelius09@...> wrote:

          From: Mark <marcusaurelius09@...>
          Subject: [neoplatonism] Philosophical role of beauty in Plato
          To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 3:33 PM

           

          Howdy folks,

          In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper

          http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1031165/Philosophical_role_of_beauty_in_Plato

          It deals mainly with Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. This one's a little experimental, loose and free-form...

          Comments, feedback, and suggestions are of course most appreciated, via this list or e-mail, or messenger. (and thanks all for the encourageing response to the previous paper).

          Mark

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Goya
          Eckhardt is indeed a Neoplatonist, but he gets his Neoplatonism by means of a long, twisting path, by developing the doctrines of Albertus Magnus and his
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Eckhardt is indeed a Neoplatonist, but he gets his Neoplatonism by means
            of a long, twisting path, by developing the doctrines of Albertus Magnus
            and his Rhineland followers (Dieterich of Freiburg, Henry Suso etc.).
            Albert in turn derived his philosophy from an eclectic mix of Islamic
            (Avicenna, Farabi, Ghazzali, Ibn Gabirol, Maimonides, Averroes), Latin
            (Boethius, Abelard), and Greek thinkers (Eustratius, the ps.-Dionysius).
            Especially influential on him was the Liber de Causis, an Arabic reworking
            of several propositions fro Proclus' Elements of Theology with some
            Plotinus and Porphyry thrown in.

            Best, Mike




            > While I agree he is Neoplatonist, whether or not Eckhart is Aristotelian
            > (or Thomist, actually, plus there is also the question of whether Thomism
            > itself is a form of Neoplatonism)) or not would hinge on the
            > interpretation of his "my I am is I AM" or my "I is God's I" or "my isness
            > is God's isness" in relation to the Thomist treatment of esse. In light of
            > John of the Cross, the question is more pertinent about Eckhart since
            > inwardly for John, so to speak, the very core of subjectivity is the
            > interiority of esse. Esse viewed from the outside, as it were, is God's
            > gift of "to be" proportioned to all essences. So each essence uniquely
            > _is_ uniquely. If an essence such as a human being is essentially and
            > actually the animated interiority of an animated body, then it seems
            > (contrary to Gilson) that there is a mystical and Augustinian line running
            > from Thomas to Eckhart and Juan de la Cruz where the esse conferred upon
            > an essence is experienced as God's I
            > given to the creature's I as its very existence. I am because of that I
            > AM, so to speak. In terms of Eckhart, this was a line of thought
            > explored some years back by C.F. Kelley and Reiner Schurmann. In terms
            > of John of the Cross, that line was developed by me in unpublished work
            > that was delivered in conferences to Catholic audiences. 
            >
            > From: robin friedman <rbnfriedman@...>
            > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:40 PM
            > Subject: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
            >
            >
            >  
            >
            > I just read a new book by Richard Woods, OP, "Meister Eckhart: Master of
            > Mystics" by Richard Woods, OP.  Woods is a past chairman of the Eckhart
            > Society.  The book includes 12 essays on various aspects of Meister
            > Eckhart's thought.  Throughout the book, especially in an essay titled,
            > "The Thinker's Way to God:Meister Eckhart and the Neoplatonic Heritage" 
            > Woods emphasizes the strongly Neoplatonic character of Eckhart's writings,
            > beginning with Plato and continuing through Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and
            > Alexandrian Christian thinkers.  Eckhart never mentions Plotinus by name,
            > but I agree with Woods that the Meister's thought is Neoplatonic as
            > opposed, say, to Aristotelian. Many spiritually inclined people of various
            > denominations, or no denominations at all, still find Eckhart an important
            > spiritual teacher. Neoplatonism through him, and others, is still much
            > alive.
            > --- On Sat, 10/8/11, Mark <marcusaurelius09@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: Mark <marcusaurelius09@...>
            > Subject: [neoplatonism] Philosophical role of beauty in Plato
            > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 3:33 PM
            >
            >  
            >
            > Howdy folks,
            >
            > In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper
            >
            > http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1031165/Philosophical_role_of_beauty_in_Plato
            >
            > It deals mainly with Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. This one's a little
            > experimental, loose and free-form...
            >
            > Comments, feedback, and suggestions are of course most appreciated, via
            > this list or e-mail, or messenger. (and thanks all for the encourageing
            > response to the previous paper).
            >
            > Mark
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >


            Michael Chase
            CNRS UPR 76
            Paris-Villejuif
            France
          • Thomas Mether
            Well Michael, I assuming we all know that. What I am interested in is the degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart computer virus
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Well Michael, I assuming we all know that. What I am interested in is the degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).
               
              Thomas

              From: Goya <goya@...>
              To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:17 PM
              Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart


               
              Eckhardt is indeed a Neoplatonist, but he gets his Neoplatonism by means
              of a long, twisting path, by developing the doctrines of Albertus Magnus
              and his Rhineland followers (Dieterich of Freiburg, Henry Suso etc.).
              Albert in turn derived his philosophy from an eclectic mix of Islamic
              (Avicenna, Farabi, Ghazzali, Ibn Gabirol, Maimonides, Averroes), Latin
              (Boethius, Abelard), and Greek thinkers (Eustratius, the ps.-Dionysius).
              Especially influential on him was the Liber de Causis, an Arabic reworking
              of several propositions fro Proclus' Elements of Theology with some
              Plotinus and Porphyry thrown in.

              Best, Mike

              > While I agree he is Neoplatonist, whether or not Eckhart is Aristotelian
              > (or Thomist, actually, plus there is also the question of whether Thomism
              > itself is a form of Neoplatonism)) or not would hinge on the
              > interpretation of his "my I am is I AM" or my "I is God's I" or "my isness
              > is God's isness" in relation to the Thomist treatment of esse. In light of
              > John of the Cross, the question is more pertinent about Eckhart since
              > inwardly for John, so to speak, the very core of subjectivity is the
              > interiority of esse. Esse viewed from the outside, as it were, is God's
              > gift of "to be" proportioned to all essences. So each essence uniquely
              > _is_ uniquely. If an essence such as a human being is essentially and
              > actually the animated interiority of an animated body, then it seems
              > (contrary to Gilson) that there is a mystical and Augustinian line running
              > from Thomas to Eckhart and Juan de la Cruz where the esse conferred upon
              > an essence is experienced as God's I
              > given to the creature's I as its very existence. I am because of that I
              > AM, so to speak. In terms of Eckhart, this was a line of thought
              > explored some years back by C.F. Kelley and Reiner Schurmann. In terms
              > of John of the Cross, that line was developed by me in unpublished work
              > that was delivered in conferences to Catholic audiences. 
              >
              > From: robin friedman <rbnfriedman@...>
              > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:40 PM
              > Subject: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              > I just read a new book by Richard Woods, OP, "Meister Eckhart: Master of
              > Mystics" by Richard Woods, OP.  Woods is a past chairman of the Eckhart
              > Society.  The book includes 12 essays on various aspects of Meister
              > Eckhart's thought.  Throughout the book, especially in an essay titled,
              > "The Thinker's Way to God:Meister Eckhart and the Neoplatonic Heritage" 
              > Woods emphasizes the strongly Neoplatonic character of Eckhart's writings,
              > beginning with Plato and continuing through Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and
              > Alexandrian Christian thinkers.  Eckhart never mentions Plotinus by name,
              > but I agree with Woods that the Meister's thought is Neoplatonic as
              > opposed, say, to Aristotelian. Many spiritually inclined people of various
              > denominations, or no denominations at all, still find Eckhart an important
              > spiritual teacher. Neoplatonism through him, and others, is still much
              > alive.
              > --- On Sat, 10/8/11, Mark <marcusaurelius09@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: Mark <marcusaurelius09@...>
              > Subject: [neoplatonism] Philosophical role of beauty in Plato
              > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Saturday, October 8, 2011, 3:33 PM
              >
              >  
              >
              > Howdy folks,
              >
              > In a fit of muse-provoked distemper, I have given birth to another paper
              >
              > http://mcgill.academia.edu/MarkLamarre/Papers/1031165/Philosophical_role_of_beauty_in_Plato
              >
              > It deals mainly with Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. This one's a little
              > experimental, loose and free-form...
              >
              > Comments, feedback, and suggestions are of course most appreciated, via
              > this list or e-mail, or messenger. (and thanks all for the encourageing
              > response to the previous paper).
              >
              > Mark
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >

              Michael Chase
              CNRS UPR 76
              Paris-Villejuif
              France




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Goya
              ... M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly unjustified. What I am interested in is the ... M.C. Maybe I m just tired, but I
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 18, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                > Well Michael, I assuming we all know that.

                M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly
                unjustified.

                What I am interested in is the
                > degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart
                > "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be
                > made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly
                > God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an
                > inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the
                > Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of
                > the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).

                M.C. Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand any of the above.



                Michael Chase
                CNRS UPR 76
                Paris-Villejuif
                France
              • Thomas Mether
                Michael, The computer virus motif comes from Jaroslav Pelikan. He described Jewish (Philo) and patristic thought as a stealth computer virus that mimics the
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 19, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael,
                  The computer virus motif comes from Jaroslav Pelikan. He described Jewish (Philo) and patristic thought as a stealth computer virus that mimics the pagan philosophical host program while drastically re-writing it. In the debate between Gilson and Maritain over whether or not there was an intellectual intuition of the esse proportioned to an essence (where Gilson argued there is not, rather, esse is the posit of a judgment and Maritain argued there is), Ratzinger (in his review of the debate in his book on Bonaventure) notes that both presupposed that knowledge of esse (whether intuited or not) was from the outside, so to speak. The human cognizer, for both, is considering an objective (modern sense) thing or substantial form in terms of esse being proportioned to it (the what exists in the manner or form of its what, since each what exists in its unique mode as what it is, being is analoguous between any two or more creaturely substances). In the
                  more mystical lines where Neoplatonic and Augustianian ways of thinking are preserved, he suggests, the interior life adds a new Neoplatonic element even within a Thomist framework that both Gilson and Maritain, in their debate, did not consider. Instead of debating whether or not knowledge of esse of an external thing or substance is by intellectual intuition or not (an external approach), the more mytical strand poses the question in terms of interiority. Does the soul encounter from inside itself the esse proportioned to it? Ratzinger raises the question in terms of Bonaventure to address what makes the "Augustinian-Aristotelianism" of Bonaventure different from the "Aristotelian-Augustianism" of Aquinas where the prior term in those pairs has priority over the second term. Kelley and Schurmann suggest that, to use Pelikan's analogy again, later medieval mytical Neoplatonism may act as a stealth virus mimicing the Thomist host program while
                  radically re-writing it, namely, in that the esse proportioned to the human subtance can be encountered inwardly (and thus, my isness is God's isness given to me, my I is a inner reflex of God's I is what esse is like inside as opposed to Thomas', Gilson's, and Maritain's considering it from the outside). So, as a "computer virus" mimicing the Tomist host program, Eckhart gives Thomism a Neoplatonic turn Thomas might not have taken or agreed with. I have argued that something similar is going on in John of the Cross. Denis Cleary argues the same type of re-working of the Thomist concept of esse towards a more Neoplatonic form by shifting from an external perspective considering things "out there" to an internal perspective within the soul is what is occurring in Rosmini (which others describe as his "Augustinian subversion" or Thomism).
                   
                  Thomas     

                  From: Goya <goya@...>
                  To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart


                   

                  > Well Michael, I assuming we all know that.

                  M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly
                  unjustified.

                  What I am interested in is the
                  > degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart
                  > "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be
                  > made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly
                  > God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an
                  > inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the
                  > Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of
                  > the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).

                  M.C. Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand any of the above.

                  Michael Chase
                  CNRS UPR 76
                  Paris-Villejuif
                  France




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • robin friedman
                  If I understand this post correctly, it is consistent with Woods in the book which began this discussion.  Woods acknowledges the great influence of Aquinas
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 19, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If I understand this post correctly, it is consistent with Woods in the book which began this discussion.  Woods acknowledges the great influence of Aquinas on Eckhart -- he might even use the language of Thomism with a twist.  I read Kelly's book "Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge" some time ago.  I remember it is difficult, insightful, with a certain dogmatism. Kelley presents a radically nondualistic Eckhart, with great similarities to Eastern thought, that breaks down boundaries between inside and outside, God, and self. A redirection from individual things to God, according to my notes..

                    --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:


                    From: Thomas Mether <t_mether@...>
                    Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
                    To: "neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com" <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                    Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 1:52 PM



                     



                    Michael,
                    The computer virus motif comes from Jaroslav Pelikan. He described Jewish (Philo) and patristic thought as a stealth computer virus that mimics the pagan philosophical host program while drastically re-writing it. In the debate between Gilson and Maritain over whether or not there was an intellectual intuition of the esse proportioned to an essence (where Gilson argued there is not, rather, esse is the posit of a judgment and Maritain argued there is), Ratzinger (in his review of the debate in his book on Bonaventure) notes that both presupposed that knowledge of esse (whether intuited or not) was from the outside, so to speak. The human cognizer, for both, is considering an objective (modern sense) thing or substantial form in terms of esse being proportioned to it (the what exists in the manner or form of its what, since each what exists in its unique mode as what it is, being is analoguous between any two or more creaturely substances). In the
                    more mystical lines where Neoplatonic and Augustianian ways of thinking are preserved, he suggests, the interior life adds a new Neoplatonic element even within a Thomist framework that both Gilson and Maritain, in their debate, did not consider. Instead of debating whether or not knowledge of esse of an external thing or substance is by intellectual intuition or not (an external approach), the more mytical strand poses the question in terms of interiority. Does the soul encounter from inside itself the esse proportioned to it? Ratzinger raises the question in terms of Bonaventure to address what makes the "Augustinian-Aristotelianism" of Bonaventure different from the "Aristotelian-Augustianism" of Aquinas where the prior term in those pairs has priority over the second term. Kelley and Schurmann suggest that, to use Pelikan's analogy again, later medieval mytical Neoplatonism may act as a stealth virus mimicing the Thomist host program while
                    radically re-writing it, namely, in that the esse proportioned to the human subtance can be encountered inwardly (and thus, my isness is God's isness given to me, my I is a inner reflex of God's I is what esse is like inside as opposed to Thomas', Gilson's, and Maritain's considering it from the outside). So, as a "computer virus" mimicing the Tomist host program, Eckhart gives Thomism a Neoplatonic turn Thomas might not have taken or agreed with. I have argued that something similar is going on in John of the Cross. Denis Cleary argues the same type of re-working of the Thomist concept of esse towards a more Neoplatonic form by shifting from an external perspective considering things "out there" to an internal perspective within the soul is what is occurring in Rosmini (which others describe as his "Augustinian subversion" or Thomism).
                     
                    Thomas     

                    From: Goya <goya@...>
                    To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:45 PM
                    Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart

                     

                    > Well Michael, I assuming we all know that.

                    M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly
                    unjustified.

                    What I am interested in is the
                    > degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart
                    > "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be
                    > made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly
                    > God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an
                    > inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the
                    > Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of
                    > the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).

                    M.C. Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand any of the above.

                    Michael Chase
                    CNRS UPR 76
                    Paris-Villejuif
                    France

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Thomas Mether
                    Yes, Robin, Kelley does have a dogmatic streak. I think you understand the post. The Neoplatonic turn the authors suggest is to reintroduce interiority into
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 19, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes, Robin, Kelley does have a dogmatic streak. I think you understand the post. The "Neoplatonic turn" the authors suggest is to reintroduce interiority into the question of the knowledge and type of knowledge humans have of esse. Esse (Latin, "to be") in Thomas is God's giving a contingent being (an essence) an actual existence (instead of just an abstract possibility) sometimes described in terms of a thing's whatness (essence) and its thatness (existence). Unlike Scotus, though, Thomas holds that existence is not a univocal concept (a uniform thatness across the board) but analogical because the actual existing or the actual to be is perfectly proportioned to each essence. So, the existing of a plant is not the same as the existing of a human. In Thomas, this conferring of actual existence upon a being (essence) is a communication of God Himself since God is Being. So, esse is God as the power to be gifted to the creature (the contingent being who
                      does not cantain the power to be intrinsically, is not necessary being). The Neoplatonic turn in Eckhart, it is claimed by the authors mentioned, is that the esse, the actuality, the actual existing of something in one case, myself, can actually be inwardly experienced and encountered from the inside rather than the outside in a twofold sense. (1) Instead of looking outwardly at a rock, noting its essential properties (the whatness notes of its essence) and knowing it is really existence (knowing the outside esse of something from the outside), these authors suggested that Eckhart said that in my case the esse, the actuality of my being or my actuality of being my own being (in a borrowed sense), is something I have internal access to, and (2) that I can encounter that the esse conferred on contingent creatures itself has an interiority also. So, from the inside (1), the esse that I participate in as an actual existing being also turns out to be
                      something with its own interiority and is a Who or Thou, so to speak, or the real I.
                       
                      So, externally, God is Being Itself. Internally, God is I AM. For creatures, the communication of the power of Being to any being is externally recognizing it actually exists. For creatures with souls and interior access to their own actuality, that power of being turns out to also have an "inside" of God sharing Godself.
                       
                      One aspect I don't think Kelley picks up is that since God is Trinity in Christian theology, then the question of identity becomes more complex. From an Eckhartian perspective (assuming this analysis holds up), if God by nature is three Persons as one Being (outside view), then inwardly self (Being from the inside) in its very identity is a relational interior life between Persons. So, as I think Corbin noted somewhere (although he may have just been talking about Zoroastrianism's concept of self as internally a bi-polar I-thou reality), it might be that the human self in its very identity is also a relational interior life between the human person (interior access to and relatedness to God) and divine person (the interiority of esse). In light of this consideration, the suggestion that has been made in some quarters that Kelly read Eckhart too much in terms of Advaita Vedanta has something to it.
                       
                      Thomas   
                      From: robin friedman <rbnfriedman@...>
                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:15 PM
                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart


                       
                      If I understand this post correctly, it is consistent with Woods in the book which began this discussion.  Woods acknowledges the great influence of Aquinas on Eckhart -- he might even use the language of Thomism with a twist.  I read Kelly's book "Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge" some time ago.  I remember it is difficult, insightful, with a certain dogmatism. Kelley presents a radically nondualistic Eckhart, with great similarities to Eastern thought, that breaks down boundaries between inside and outside, God, and self. A redirection from individual things to God, according to my notes..

                      --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:

                      From: Thomas Mether <t_mether@...>
                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
                      To: "neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com" <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 1:52 PM

                       

                      Michael,
                      The computer virus motif comes from Jaroslav Pelikan. He described Jewish (Philo) and patristic thought as a stealth computer virus that mimics the pagan philosophical host program while drastically re-writing it. In the debate between Gilson and Maritain over whether or not there was an intellectual intuition of the esse proportioned to an essence (where Gilson argued there is not, rather, esse is the posit of a judgment and Maritain argued there is), Ratzinger (in his review of the debate in his book on Bonaventure) notes that both presupposed that knowledge of esse (whether intuited or not) was from the outside, so to speak. The human cognizer, for both, is considering an objective (modern sense) thing or substantial form in terms of esse being proportioned to it (the what exists in the manner or form of its what, since each what exists in its unique mode as what it is, being is analoguous between any two or more creaturely substances). In the
                      more mystical lines where Neoplatonic and Augustianian ways of thinking are preserved, he suggests, the interior life adds a new Neoplatonic element even within a Thomist framework that both Gilson and Maritain, in their debate, did not consider. Instead of debating whether or not knowledge of esse of an external thing or substance is by intellectual intuition or not (an external approach), the more mytical strand poses the question in terms of interiority. Does the soul encounter from inside itself the esse proportioned to it? Ratzinger raises the question in terms of Bonaventure to address what makes the "Augustinian-Aristotelianism" of Bonaventure different from the "Aristotelian-Augustianism" of Aquinas where the prior term in those pairs has priority over the second term. Kelley and Schurmann suggest that, to use Pelikan's analogy again, later medieval mytical Neoplatonism may act as a stealth virus mimicing the Thomist host program while
                      radically re-writing it, namely, in that the esse proportioned to the human subtance can be encountered inwardly (and thus, my isness is God's isness given to me, my I is a inner reflex of God's I is what esse is like inside as opposed to Thomas', Gilson's, and Maritain's considering it from the outside). So, as a "computer virus" mimicing the Tomist host program, Eckhart gives Thomism a Neoplatonic turn Thomas might not have taken or agreed with. I have argued that something similar is going on in John of the Cross. Denis Cleary argues the same type of re-working of the Thomist concept of esse towards a more Neoplatonic form by shifting from an external perspective considering things "out there" to an internal perspective within the soul is what is occurring in Rosmini (which others describe as his "Augustinian subversion" or Thomism).
                       
                      Thomas     

                      From: Goya <goya@...>
                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:45 PM
                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart

                       

                      > Well Michael, I assuming we all know that.

                      M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly
                      unjustified.

                      What I am interested in is the
                      > degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart
                      > "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be
                      > made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly
                      > God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an
                      > inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the
                      > Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of
                      > the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).

                      M.C. Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand any of the above.

                      Michael Chase
                      CNRS UPR 76
                      Paris-Villejuif
                      France

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • robin friedman
                      Thanks, Thomas.  This is very helpful. ... From: Thomas Mether Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart To:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 24, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks, Thomas.  This is very helpful.

                        --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:


                        From: Thomas Mether <t_mether@...>
                        Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
                        To: "neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com" <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                        Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 3:21 PM



                         



                        Yes, Robin, Kelley does have a dogmatic streak. I think you understand the post. The "Neoplatonic turn" the authors suggest is to reintroduce interiority into the question of the knowledge and type of knowledge humans have of esse. Esse (Latin, "to be") in Thomas is God's giving a contingent being (an essence) an actual existence (instead of just an abstract possibility) sometimes described in terms of a thing's whatness (essence) and its thatness (existence). Unlike Scotus, though, Thomas holds that existence is not a univocal concept (a uniform thatness across the board) but analogical because the actual existing or the actual to be is perfectly proportioned to each essence. So, the existing of a plant is not the same as the existing of a human. In Thomas, this conferring of actual existence upon a being (essence) is a communication of God Himself since God is Being. So, esse is God as the power to be gifted to the creature (the contingent being who
                        does not cantain the power to be intrinsically, is not necessary being). The Neoplatonic turn in Eckhart, it is claimed by the authors mentioned, is that the esse, the actuality, the actual existing of something in one case, myself, can actually be inwardly experienced and encountered from the inside rather than the outside in a twofold sense. (1) Instead of looking outwardly at a rock, noting its essential properties (the whatness notes of its essence) and knowing it is really existence (knowing the outside esse of something from the outside), these authors suggested that Eckhart said that in my case the esse, the actuality of my being or my actuality of being my own being (in a borrowed sense), is something I have internal access to, and (2) that I can encounter that the esse conferred on contingent creatures itself has an interiority also. So, from the inside (1), the esse that I participate in as an actual existing being also turns out to be
                        something with its own interiority and is a Who or Thou, so to speak, or the real I.
                         
                        So, externally, God is Being Itself. Internally, God is I AM. For creatures, the communication of the power of Being to any being is externally recognizing it actually exists. For creatures with souls and interior access to their own actuality, that power of being turns out to also have an "inside" of God sharing Godself.
                         
                        One aspect I don't think Kelley picks up is that since God is Trinity in Christian theology, then the question of identity becomes more complex. From an Eckhartian perspective (assuming this analysis holds up), if God by nature is three Persons as one Being (outside view), then inwardly self (Being from the inside) in its very identity is a relational interior life between Persons. So, as I think Corbin noted somewhere (although he may have just been talking about Zoroastrianism's concept of self as internally a bi-polar I-thou reality), it might be that the human self in its very identity is also a relational interior life between the human person (interior access to and relatedness to God) and divine person (the interiority of esse). In light of this consideration, the suggestion that has been made in some quarters that Kelly read Eckhart too much in terms of Advaita Vedanta has something to it.
                         
                        Thomas   
                        From: robin friedman <rbnfriedman@...>
                        To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:15 PM
                        Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart

                         
                        If I understand this post correctly, it is consistent with Woods in the book which began this discussion.  Woods acknowledges the great influence of Aquinas on Eckhart -- he might even use the language of Thomism with a twist.  I read Kelly's book "Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge" some time ago.  I remember it is difficult, insightful, with a certain dogmatism. Kelley presents a radically nondualistic Eckhart, with great similarities to Eastern thought, that breaks down boundaries between inside and outside, God, and self. A redirection from individual things to God, according to my notes..

                        --- On Wed, 10/19/11, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:

                        From: Thomas Mether <t_mether@...>
                        Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart
                        To: "neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com" <neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com>
                        Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 1:52 PM

                         

                        Michael,
                        The computer virus motif comes from Jaroslav Pelikan. He described Jewish (Philo) and patristic thought as a stealth computer virus that mimics the pagan philosophical host program while drastically re-writing it. In the debate between Gilson and Maritain over whether or not there was an intellectual intuition of the esse proportioned to an essence (where Gilson argued there is not, rather, esse is the posit of a judgment and Maritain argued there is), Ratzinger (in his review of the debate in his book on Bonaventure) notes that both presupposed that knowledge of esse (whether intuited or not) was from the outside, so to speak. The human cognizer, for both, is considering an objective (modern sense) thing or substantial form in terms of esse being proportioned to it (the what exists in the manner or form of its what, since each what exists in its unique mode as what it is, being is analoguous between any two or more creaturely substances). In the
                        more mystical lines where Neoplatonic and Augustianian ways of thinking are preserved, he suggests, the interior life adds a new Neoplatonic element even within a Thomist framework that both Gilson and Maritain, in their debate, did not consider. Instead of debating whether or not knowledge of esse of an external thing or substance is by intellectual intuition or not (an external approach), the more mytical strand poses the question in terms of interiority. Does the soul encounter from inside itself the esse proportioned to it? Ratzinger raises the question in terms of Bonaventure to address what makes the "Augustinian-Aristotelianism" of Bonaventure different from the "Aristotelian-Augustianism" of Aquinas where the prior term in those pairs has priority over the second term. Kelley and Schurmann suggest that, to use Pelikan's analogy again, later medieval mytical Neoplatonism may act as a stealth virus mimicing the Thomist host program while
                        radically re-writing it, namely, in that the esse proportioned to the human subtance can be encountered inwardly (and thus, my isness is God's isness given to me, my I is a inner reflex of God's I is what esse is like inside as opposed to Thomas', Gilson's, and Maritain's considering it from the outside). So, as a "computer virus" mimicing the Tomist host program, Eckhart gives Thomism a Neoplatonic turn Thomas might not have taken or agreed with. I have argued that something similar is going on in John of the Cross. Denis Cleary argues the same type of re-working of the Thomist concept of esse towards a more Neoplatonic form by shifting from an external perspective considering things "out there" to an internal perspective within the soul is what is occurring in Rosmini (which others describe as his "Augustinian subversion" or Thomism).
                         
                        Thomas     

                        From: Goya <goya@...>
                        To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:45 PM
                        Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Neoplatonism and Eckhart

                         

                        > Well Michael, I assuming we all know that.

                        M.C. Rather a bold assumption, I would say. I imagine it is in fact wholly
                        unjustified.

                        What I am interested in is the
                        > degree of how much a tighter case for a Neoplatonist cum Eckhart
                        > "computer virus" within a Thomist host computer program framework can be
                        > made if focus is given to the interiority dimension. If what is outwardly
                        > God's esse communicated to essences is interiorily to beings having an
                        > inner life God's communication of his very Godself, then can we say the
                        > Thomist esse proportioned to an essence is for mystics (Eckhart, John of
                        > the Cross) sort of the sum of their ego cogito (to reverse Descartes).

                        M.C. Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand any of the above.

                        Michael Chase
                        CNRS UPR 76
                        Paris-Villejuif
                        France

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.