We are using theism in different senses. Tillich blatantly rejects "theism". Yes in a sense is still s theist but that's not exactly fair.
I'm sorry you don't like Rohr, but you can't discount him out of hand. He hasn't been kicked out of the Catholic Church yet.
I'll admit I'm not an expert on Descartes nor spinoza.
I forgot what we are originally arguing. The meaning of God and theism right? You win, I'll try not to use those terms.

Yeah part of my argument is that if there some sort of meaning then it's unlikely that this meaning to be the biggest jerk you can be. Cultivating virtue and treating others well and seeking solace in prayer/study would suit one well regardless.

Fair enough, but there is a range of all of them what they mean. I fall somewhere in that range and I don't feel the need to spell out exactly where I fall because I'm not sure. I could make up a position.

Tillich says God is ground of all being, he rejects theism
Rohr is a via negativa mystic, who doesn't strictly define God. He talks about God as consciousness sometimes.
Descartes has a pretty philosophical view of God from first principles
Spinoza's God is more complex that one line to explain
And so on...

There is a big difference between this philosophy forum and various faith forums. I'm learning to be more exact with my wording. They are much less critical there. I welcome the corrections!

cease appropriating the word God. If — Thorongil

What term should I use? I hate the overuse of the word too. How about Monad (that's one my favorite? I'll try that out on here and see how it goes.

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Spinoza and Plato and Descartes and Tillich and Richard Rohr all mean this wider sense of God to jystva nane a few. But your point is still valid, I don't mean the God that the baptist church is taking about.

I'll grant that you can't talk about why does God allow suffering without addressing does God exist. So let's switch topics within this thread.

Why I have faith in God:
I'm sure you are familiar with Pascal's wager. As a mystic, I have a modified version of it.
Possible outcomes:
1. God exists and has given a "special" revelation (Aquanis) to one particular faith. For the sake of argument, we'll say the Mormons are right (South Park reference)
2. God exists but only reveals himself in "natural" revelation (Aquanis again) but doesn't have a favorite religion
3. God doesn't exist as a diety of any kind, but there some non-sentient source of goodness or virtue or universal conciousness or spiritual reality or objective purpose. In short, maybe not God but something.
4. No God, no somehting. Pure nihilism.

Any other possibilities?

I have not be convinced with certainty that any one of the above realities is true enough to remove all reasonable doubt. I have a lot of doubt actually.

So in lack of clear evidence, I make a existential choice or a leap of faith (which I frequently second guess and re-evaluate). Personally I use two criteria: what makes the most sense out of my experience and then look at what's at stake.

Experience: I have frequent religious experiences, perhaps I have an active temporal lobe. I fully admit that not all these experiences are genuine not easily interpreted. I definitely acknowledge the possibility of religious delusion both in theory and in my own life. But so accept nihilism, I would have to say I'm 100% delusional. That would be pretty difficult to do.

What's at stake;
If 1 is true, the mormons are right and I didn't become Mormon. I've said before that there is a lack of clear evidence in order to make an informed choice. How would I know they are right other than to take their word for it, especially since there are competing revelations? There is the taste and see approach but I've done that with 7 religions and never heard God lay it out for me yet. Did I stop just a few religions short? I can't see being morally responsible for believing something without good evidence.
If 2 is true, this is what I most closely believe, is true I'm good. As a mystic I try to draw closer to God and develop virtue. Now believing alone gets me nowhere, it's all in the actual practice
If 3 is true, then hopefully my path of spirituality and virtue gets me closer to whatever reality there is or in accordance with whatever source of meaning or goodness exists.
If 4 is true, which I think is very unlikely, then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. My subjective definition of meaning is as good as any other subjective meaning. I think that my path brings me peace and fulfillment so by that sense it's great.

My biggest problem is the haunting feeling that an exclusivist view of Christianity or Islam is right and I'll end up in hell for lack of intellectual belief. This is completely illogical and makes no philosophical or scriptural sense, yet large numbers of people have thus view and I have been told this many times by people worried about my salvation. It's unsettling.

Javra,
Hello! Thanks for the welcome.
I'm using the title of Platonist myself but the forum has helped me realize I don't exactly fit in that category. I don't "neo"Platonism because Plotinus would have said he was a Platonist and I'm mainly studying Plato and Plotinus.

I agree completely on the erotic aspect to mysticism. I write Rumi style poems about God that aren't PG. I also think there's a place for sensuality in spiritual practice. Enjoying a cup of tea, fully enjoying it mindfully, can be a way of showing gratitude for the many gifts from God. Romantic love with a spouse too.

I'll flush out more of a thought experiment. As I said before you live off $10,000/year or less to include rent and utilities but perhaps not health insurance (it's very expensive). That's less than minimum wage full time earnings. Try to live a cheaply as possible and have no luxuries, use all excess income to donate to worthy charities sectetly and don't brag about your austerity. Would the happiness of knowing your helping others outweigh the loss of desired luxuries? If you had a starving child in front of you and choose between a DVD for yourself and a bowl of rice to give, it would be a no brainer and would be rewarding to give. Would your worry about finances or status or promotions disappear? Obviously monks already do this but they require on the charity of others to sustain them and also devote their time to prayer or charitable work and have other vows beyond poverty. What if you worked a normal career but knew a good portion of your salary went to others and not yourself? Again my wife would probably veto this idea, so it's just a thought experiment.

No, you're just redefining God to what it hasn't and doesn't normatively refer to. — Thorongil

Spinoza would disagree. At least I think he would. I would definitely disagree. I'm not entirely consistent in what I mean by God. For me, God is a range of possible realities.
I'll start a seperate thread tommorow.

why not — Thorongil

This topic deserves its own thread. I'm new here so I'm not sure of group norms. I've made four threads in five days. Too many or go ahead a post another one?

I'll try to answer this too in the new thread, it's a good question l.

doesn't seem to the case to me that everyone is like that. I don't think everyone fixates on suffering. — Noble Dust

Hmmm... maybe you're right. I do remember thinking I was more or less happy until Buddhism taught me how much I was suffering. :)

I don't know about how much I agree with the Gita or Hinduism apart from the piece I quoted. The same idea crops up other places but I remembered the Gita putting it most clearly. In Kabbalah, they teach the soul descends from perfection into suffering on purpose in order to reascend later in order to be united closer to God that pre-fall. You appreciate something more when it's gone sort of idea. Kabbalah is a lot harder to quote (or read).

About self-renunciation: I had an insight today from Plato's Republic where he says the virtue/justice is the path to happiness. If I lived extremely simply eating cheaply and never indulging in luxury and spent the money instead on charity, in theory I'd be much happier. First, the joy from helping others would be deeper and longer lasting than sensual pleasure. Second, if I could live off a very austere lifestyle then I would become immune to the desire or worry of wealth. The only thing that would change if I lost my job or went bankrupt would be how much I could give to charity. Want to never have to worry about money again? Learn to live on $500/month, haha. Of course I couldn't persuade my wife to join me on this experiment, but I can realize my happiness lies in virtue and nothing else so I can let go of the fear of poverty. Because even in the deepest poverty, I still have the chance for virtue.

If we can, then "mysterious ways" is fucked up. :) It can even be a contradiction. — Pacem

Yes the way the phrase "mysterious ways" is used commonly is complete BS. God doesn't use one earthly misfortune to bring about an earthly blessing later on in order to balance the books. The longer I practice as a mystic, the more I'm convinced that God doesn't care about our earthly success or worldly happiness with things such as promotions, healings, or martial happiness. At least praying to Him about such things has yielded me little results. Thank goodness too, if God were just a personal wish granter than it would fuel my already unbearable ego and self centeredness! Already religion tends to lead into being all about me, even with no statistically significant evidence for answering of prayers.

Yet understood in the proper context, the Catholics are right. God and the ways He interacts with us is mysterious. It is beyond our full understanding. Paul says we go from understanding to understanding. I think Bahá'u'llá (Baha'i founder) put that even better. He says we journey from astonishment to astonishment. Either way it is, at some point, partially comprehendable.

To me, suffering is connected with free will. — Noble Dust

This was a fantastic response. Very well written. There's a lot there to ponder.

I especially liked "world without suffering would have no purpose"

They way you describe human freedom sounds familiar, what theologian or philosopher is that?

"what do we do with our suffering? Do we avoid it? Let it consume us? Or let it teach us?"
You've argued very persuasively that we should allow suffering to teach us virtue and lead us closer to God. I think the Gita is also right though. The response of the mystic to suffering should thus be two fold. It is not to be shunned or ignored but is an invitation to greater self-renouncation (letting go of the desire for the lacking thing) and to be light or to reflect God's light in the darkness of that situation.


From our human perspective, there is definitely varying degrees of suffering. I wonder which way God sees it. Does He see all human suffering as petty almost foolish worry like the Gita quote in my first post, since everything from the stress of loosing my car keys to a lethal pandemic is insignificant from a eternal perspective? Or is it the opposite that as the Torah says and as Jesus shows in the gospel narrative that He cares for each one of us, knowing us by name, and sees the subjective suffering in our hearts even over small things?

One more question about suffering and this my greatest beef with God. Why are we created so psychologically biased towards suffering? It's human nature that if everything is going well and there is one small problem or even potential problem, the mind fixates on that one thing. Obviously it's a survival trait, gratitude and contentment don't keep us alive to have more babies over being paranoid and lustful. Yet it is the greatest source of misery, I feel we are wired to be unhappy.

God "works in mysterious ways". — darthbarracuda

True, He does. (I agree with you that it is probably Aquinas) I don't know we can know exactly why or how God permits suffering. However I think if we can think of no rational scheme in which he should it is a red flag that something is wrong in our conception of God or in suffering or somewhere else.

This question needs to be addressed first, because if God does exist, t — Thorongil

I'd love to do another thread on this but I've made several threads already. I'll have to wait a few days. The short answer is I see it as an existential choice or even wager. I can't be certain either way as to if there is God. To me, it makes the most sense out of my experience and is the best objective wager (kind of like Pascal) to have faith. I completely get if someone never really has much in the way of religious experiences they have little incentive to believe.

pseudo-problem in history of philosophy. — Pacem

You pointed out my obvious error. I'm really discussing the problem of suffering. Suffering is not necessarily evil. In fact I would say they aren't the same.

for being virtuous and wise, my vision is different - Peace. — T Clark

I'm curious as to what that vision is. I really liked TimeLine's description of an authentic admission caused by a realistic view of oneself that leads step by step towards virtue. Even though I believe in Divine illumination, this is the same process, God (or our soul) only calls to us, we have to answer and correct our course as we go.

Penitence is not guilt but an admission and an authentic one not masked by our imagination that enables us to take one step closer toward being virtuous and wise, to form a genuine moral consciousness. — TimeLine

That's a wonderful response to my original question. Thanks!

Sorry to hear. — MountainDwarf

It's okay! I like the Zen teaching that religion is fingers (the religion) point at the moon (Truth). It's not about the finger or religion. We've touched on that in asking about are the Jews the chosen people. I'm tempted to say no or only in a limited sense. If the LORD of Israel is the one, true God that has chosen Israel, then what about a devout Pure Land Buddhist who prays to Amidah Buddha? Do their prayers get unanswered because they are misaddressed? The intention is to pray and worship the real God of reality. No one ever intends to knowingly pray to fake or imposter Gods. That's why I want to take a philosophic approach and bypass the revelation issues.

I am sorry, — szardosszemagad

I did more digging. Few things in Judaism are simple. A typical Torah study group can very academic even. The faith puts a high value on intellectual study by even typical members.

You ask an Hassidic (Orthodox Jew) about the afterlife and you might get a lot of Kabbalah in response that will make your head spin. It does to me. The quick answer is yes there is a heaven.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/80981/jewish/The-World-To-Come.htm
Here's a reform source that seems to say yes and maybe and we don't really talk about it
https://reformjudaism.org/judaism-what-believed-happen-someone-after-they-die

Woody Allen's parents would surely have been liberal, reform Jews. There's an old joke that you ask 3 Jews and get 5 opinions.

Does that help at all?

Genesis chapter 9 is where the rabbis claim they are, right? — MountainDwarf

Yes. The Rabbis say so you can be a gentile and if you follow the 7 laws you can be considered righteous and you are allowed to participate in limited ways in Jewish life.
Not all 7 laws are there in the text.

Long story short, I was probably going to convert but my wife is Christian so that wasn't going to work out. I started religion hoping. She doesn't care about philosophy though, no one does. (Except you wonderful people of course)

What about all the times in the Old Testament when he said to such and such a nation that he would end them? — MountainDwarf

Yeah, are the Jews the chosen people? Did the Absolute choose to reveal Himself to Abraham and the rest of the world was kept guessing?

God orders lots of murders in the Torah for sure. The plot thickens. I have no idea. I don't know if God commanded those things or people just said He did. I don't take the flood literally but I believe the slaughter of enemy tribes probably happened.


What about this example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muath_Al-Kasasbeh
Here is a Muslim family man who was burned alive in a cage by Isis who claimed to do so in the name of God. If a group of crazy people where kidnapping and killing people saying you told them to do it and that you approved of it, wouldn't you try to stop it or at least denounce it? Why did God not save this person or reveal to us Isis is wrong? Perhaps He already has revealed that you can't do this with murdering in the name of God in the Torah, Gospels. Quran and about any holy book you read. But it doesn't seem enough. Obviously Isis skips over those passages. Why is the world so full of this suffering? Why is the Truth not clearer? I don't know, I have no answers.

My guess is you're Reformed Judaism? — MountainDwarf

I was noahide for a while. A gentile follower of Judaism. Still has a big place in my heart.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

I go with my family to an episcopal church. I lost my faith and ended up trying religion after religion. It's all cool now that I'm a Platonist though, it's One Source for all of it.

How do you know when God is on your side and when he isn't? — MountainDwarf

God takes sides?! If he does take sides there are only two possibilities. Either he takes the side of the virtuous which means actually practicing virtue and has nothing to do with having right or wrong beliefs, only actions and intentions matter. Or, He takes everyone's side. I think in war, for example, God is on the side of every victim and for every act of selfless bravery, but does not care at for nationalism or ideology or even just war theory. I fought in the Iraq war in the US Army, God was on my side because I was a foolish kid thrust into a warzone trying to do the right thing but he was also on side of the families who houses we bombed.

This is even more contraversial but I'm beginning to suspect that having God on your side or praying to Him doesn't do any good in a worldly sense. God didn't stop some of my friends getting hurt and He didn't stop the family from loosing their home. God is on our side in the sense He calls us to greater virtue and draws us closer to Him. He only cares about eternity and He knows that He alone is what we seek. Maybe God did keep me safe (I have no way of knowing what could have happened without His providence) but He definitely does not have personal wish granting as His focus. If He grants wishes, then childhood cancer and genocide prove He does a poor job at that.

Deleted

laws are given by men, then it is necessary that the human mind works to learn and create laws so they are not really "given". But if laws are given by God, then we must simply take them as they are given to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Jewish laws are both! The Pharisees/Priests and now Rabbis create "fences" around the true Law that is given by God. For example the Torah says do not boil a kid in its mothers milk. The Rabbis say no meat and cheese in the same meal or on the same plate. Maybe the real law (intent behind the Torah passage) is to be kind to all beings.

P.S. my inner Jew keeps coming out on these forums. I don't think I can keep pretending to myself that I'm not grounded in the Abrahamic faiths. Shiva is definitely cool but it's not the same as the LORD. Even though philosophically I don't see why there should be a difference. Maybe it's just the way I've experienced God, I've never set foot in a Hindu temple for example.

God sustains everything vs. God is in everythin — MountainDwarf

What does "in" mean? (That's rhetorical) The Kabbalists, which inform a lot of Judaism, say there is a divine spark (the Yud) in creation. They say the letters of the Torah are hidden in the world. I think they are normally classified as panentheism, God is in everything, yeah. But it's mysticism so it's not meant in my opinion to be too doctrinal. In theory the only doctrine in Judaism is the Shema "Hear oh Israel, the Lord is Your God, the Lord is One"

Since Judaism came up and I espouse Truth in all revelations, is there a difference between Abrahamic Monotheism and other monotheisms (Zoroastrianism or Saviate/Shivaism in Hinduism or maybe a theistic reading of Taoism). Is God always God? Or is one monotheistic God true and the others impostors? Is polytheism just looking at different aspects of One God?

I have heard that Jews actually believe in a form of Pantheism/Panentheism? Is this true? — MountainDwarf

Yes. Hassidic Jews are Panentheists. God sustains all creation with His loving kindness.

Now Spinoza is almost a pantheist. He says existence is all modes of God's being. I'm tempted to agree with him, but I'm still contemplating it. Spinoza was kicked out of his Jewish community.

is no afterlife in the Jewish faith tradition, no hell, no heaven — szardosszemagad

I think you are thinking of ancient Judaism or of the Sadducees who didn't believe in an afterlife.
Hassidic Jews do, they believe in " a world to come" but it's not quite the same as Christian heaven and they almost never talk about hell.
I couldn't find a concise article about the world to come that doesn't go too far down the Kabbalah rabbit hole. Maimonides one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of all time includes life after death in his thirteen principles.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Jew nor ever converted to Judaism. I have a deep love of Judaism and for a while I was a noahide or gentile follower of Judaism. But I'm reveaulating that, I'm not sure about if polytheistism is really idolatry or if it is helpful to continue to identify God with the Abrahamic diety necessarily. Maybe it's best to treat all religions equally.

Cain and Abel, one son killed the other? — MountainDwarf

You make more good points. As terrible as that would be from God's perspective Abel is raised in heaven and not truly dead, in a sense Cain only offended God by his act. I think if I would forgive even a murdering son if the slain son was revived. At least I wouldn't eternally damn Cain.

As for salvation, it depends what we mean by the word. I'm not really concerned about salvation from hell. I sense God's presence and love for me and I don't worry about my eternal fate. I also know it is God alone who judges us and I cannot know anyone else's fate other than to assume they are loved in the same way I am.
For me, salvation is in the present and is an illumination by God and is a liberation from the psychological anxiety and suffering as well as the strength to practice virtue.

On a side note, you've been discussing ontology both here and on the ontological proof thread. So I thought of Liebnitz's argument that since God is all good and all perfect then this must be the best of all possible worlds. The question about hell and God's mercy is related. Yet. I don't think a world with childhood cancer and genoicide could possibly be the best of all possible world. It is only the best world ontologicaly and from an eternal perspective not from our human subjective perspective. The world is "perfect" because God exists and He sustains creation with His presence. Existence is perfect. But human life sometimes sucks.

God infinitely merciful and forgiving? — MountainDwarf

This is a good question. So yes, God is infinitely merciful (Spinoza) and in fact human mercy is a finite of expression of His infinite mercy.

So if there is a hell then that's because it is more merciful or just or kind or good to send a sinful person to hell than allow them into heaven. Perhaps because Universalism denies human freedom? Or perhaps it is not be merciful to the victims of sin, whose blood cries out to the LORD?

I think it's most likely there is no eternal hell and I'm a universalist. The classic universalist argument is very persuasive to me. As a parent I have two sons, how could any of them ever do anything so terrible to have me wish them eternal torment? My love is an imperfect love and God's love is perfect. Also see the parable of giving a child a snake in Luke 11.
If you believe in Christian atonement thru Jesus, which I don't, then did Jesus only die for one list but not others or put conditions on dying only for those meet them? If God is all powerful then how can we as humans oppose His will to save us? All our sin is simpley the No to God's Yes (Karl Barth)

Oranssi
Have you read the Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon)? It's in the Bible! So mystics have long talked about union with God in romantic and sexual terms. Sufi mysticism in particular.
I've started writing mystic poems but I do worry that they come out overly erotic. But thats honestly how I relate best to God as my Beloved. If you want me to send any of my poems let me know, I don't believe in subjecting others unsolicited to them!!!

I definitely relate to all of creation being an orgy of ecstasy. Though it's definitely a strange feeling and I am cautious not to say it aloud. But mystics are crazy and my sanity is long gone. I keep a lot of things to myself!

less dangerous — Jeremiah

Blind acceptance is dangerous for sure. Going on your own judgments and questioning is also dangerous. But you are right, we have no choice because refusing to choose is still a choice isn't it? So putting blind faith in someone else is a decision made by your judgement and questioning. The vast majority of people choose the religion and cultural views of their upbringing without being aware they really chosen them or at least being unaware of the alternatives.

I go could a lot of directions with that, so I'll just make two short points. First, I have a theory that maybe why many Christians (I say this because it's my cultural context) are so convinced that their religion is the only right one is because Jesus or their pastor is the only spiritual teacher they've been honestly exposed to. Jesus is a wise and insightful teacher and he lays out a wonderful spiritual path (or actually multiple spiritual paths depending on your emphasis). There are also many great Christian preachers and theologians as well as just ordinary, holy people in the pews to be inspired from. If this is all you know, of course you'd be Christian. They've never read the Quran or spent time in a synagogue or studied under a Zen teacher. These are all alien and their current context tells them they are wrong or even evil.

Second thought is a quote from Rabbi Nachman (18th century Hassidic Rabbi) that speaks for itself:
"Through a blemish in believing in the Sages, one never has whole counsel, he’s always in doubt, his counsel is divided, and he doesn’t know how to give counsel to his soul regarding any matter."

Thanks! I've really enjoyed our conversations thus far.

Hachem,
To repeat what some others have said if you want more interaction on your posts, you need to make it relatable. I'm new here so I went back to your last few threads and they are very technical in areas of science I'm not that knowledgeable in. Maybe others here are. But if you want me to participate then you need to relate to a philosophy or even just a common experience/question we all have. You may not care if I comment, because I really have nothing to add in regards to the science, but if you related it to a common interest then I could at least give my perspective. Again maybe you don't want hundreads of perspectives and comments. Think more about why are you posting.

I need to do a better job with that too though. My main purpose on the forum is to get help understanding the specific works of Plato and Plotinus. I think it's fine to have posts where I ask on page 351 of the Republic plato says this and what does he mean. In that case though I don't expect a lot of responses. But if I wanted a wider response and I were to follow my own advice on my thread "Repentance?" I should have lead off with a general statement like "if you don't believe in divine grace, then what does it mean to repent?" After stating that question then I can launch into Plato. That way there is a common starting point people can work off. That way, in your posts, someone like me who bombed their AP physics exam can have something to go off.

Is that helpful?

P.S. I just noticed that when posting on my phone I need to put in an extra line between paragraphs to keep it from looking like a solid block of text. Maybe that will help?

actually have a few problems with your statement. — Jeremiah

Yes, I see what you mean. "Human authority about God or in judging God" (grammar corrected for clarity). So I'm evaluating human ideas about God. I have my own ideas about God too. But we can only evaluate our ideas, not God himself. God is definitely never the same as our ideas of Him.
That's a helpful clarification.
Is that what you were pointing out?

Responding to the OP,

The ontological proof works well for the God of philosophy or of the Quran. There is no other beside Him, the almighty, all merciful, all wise kind of God. Which happens to be kinda of God I think is most plausible. The proof may not with absolute certainty establish that God must exist, but it's definitely informative as to His nature.

But Anselm who wrote this proof was Christian. Plato in his Republic, before Jesus was born of course, makes a powerful argument I think. God is perfectly good and cannot be higher. To change at all would only make Him less and being good He would not do that. He also has no need of deception and deceiving one about God is the greatest evil. Therefore, Gods do not incarnate. Because incarnation would be a change of state. I always find it funny that Paul says (in a quote evangelicals love) that God never changes yet the whole Torah and New Testament split is all about a change from an old convenant to a new convenant in which Gos's method of revelation and relationship with man is fundamentally changed. If God is perfect in the Torah then he can't change and he can't incarnate. If he isn't perfect in the Torah, then He's not God.
There is a way out that Jesus, the Logos, existed in the Torah and since the beginning. John 1. But then isn't Jesus then go from non-incarnate to incarnate to effectively non-incarnate again. (A body in heaven is not here on earrh, we can't visit him so it's not a real incarnation).
I think you can have a incarnate God made man but then you can't have an ontologicaly perfect God. The incarnation destroyed the idea of perfect, that's the point. God becomes man and becomes sin.

the will is always divided against itself until death, but that is well off topic. — Cavacava

This is more what I had assumed Augustine had thought. I was taught theology by Lutherans so they emphasized a continuity of Paul, Augustine and Luther as expressing the same theological orthodoxy. No agenda there, hahah. But that's what I'm very familiar with that the will is not free it is either riden by God or the devil. We are always slaves to someone.
My Buddhist training taught me that to believe we have a completely objective will is absurd. We are conditioned by a vast amount of influences that shape our natures. Spinoza is helpful here too. I defiantly think a lot of choices are an illusion and we are not the free thinkers we imagine ourselves to be. But we do still have a choice and occasionally we will choose to go against the grain. Back to Platonism, I love the Baha'i prayer that says "I turn my face to you, Oh God, illumine it with the light of thy countance and protect it from turning to anyone but thee." We have the ability to turn to God or to the illumination within our rational souls. To let our souls guide us or to turn away and follow our baser passions. I have trouble when I read Plotinus in particular of seeing myself as my soul. I sure don't feel rational and immovable and beyond suffering and all these things. But I do sense there is a personal light beconing me to follow. What's that light, my soul? An emanation? God himself? Who am I that follows? It's a jumble and Plotinus himself talks about philosophy "dividing" parts of a person that are united in their natural state. Maybe it's like a doctor saying here's your arm, your leg, and your brain but where is you? Certainly all of it.

Helpful responses, thanks.
Owning the experience is right or acknowledging the failure. It's a bit of a change of mindset to really take ownership of ones actions and character. Of course this should be done even if there is a religious God that hands out grace.

As Augustine argues, the will must be free from the material influences of the physical body in order to follow the immaterial principles of the intellect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where does Augustine address this? I'm only familiar with Luther's Bondage of the Will. I've read The Trinity and The Two Cities but it's been a long time.

think you are confusing "God" with people. — Jeremiah

How so?

The resolution is to recognize that Plato posits a tripartite person. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for this explanation. I just finished book 2 of the Republic so this is a spoiler, haha! I was wondering where Plato was going with the guardian and spirit thing.

So Plotinus says something simmilar. We have our souls that illumine our animal nature and we choose to turn our face towards higher things or baser things. I love how he says it's not the soul's fault if we sinned. She did her job of illumination and it is us who decided to turn away.

You'll have to explain why you prefer mysticism — TheMadFool

I don't really know if I can define mysticism. It's such a loaded term. Prayer? Meditation? Contemplation? All of those are loaded too.

Your depiction of the frair seeking salvation is good picture of what's it actually like. I do seek salvation, not in the evangelical sense of rescue from hell. Rather I seek it in the now, continually, and from myself and my own suffering. It's a liberation from the self-harming ways of my baser nature and a seeking of participation in a higher life with invincible joy and refuge. It's also an individual quest I really don't know how to tell anyone else how to walk their path and I'm interested in converting anyone because I'm still don't have it figured out. But the process brings me comfort and fullfillment nothing else does.

Mysticism should never replace science. It's a completely different type of knowledge. I work as a therapist in a nursing home. I do pray for my patients and sometimes even pray with them or talk about how "God's not done with them yet" so they can get stronger and go home to play with their grandkids again. But if that's all I did, I would be a terrible therapist. I use science and evidence based methods to improve their strength or balance or regain use of an affected arm from a stroke. I'm a mystic but I want my doctor to use his or her medical knowledge not their spiritual insight. It's different types of knowledge for different situations.

Ultimate knowledge of all of creation would require every type of knowledge, wouldn't it?

Being rational has worked for us — TheMadFool

I'd like to ask a follow up question.
What to Plato is reason? What do you think us reason and is it different from being rational?

I was a philosophy undergraduate and the impression I got from the meaning of reason was that it was deductive and obtained from first principles. To use reason meant to sit and think really hard.

But I think Plato and Plotinus mean something much broader by reason. They say we have two parts of our nature or soul. We have a higher rational part and a lower animal desiring part.

I suspect use of reason in that context means many faculties used together to make a concious and principled choice over a more conditioned and automatic choice. Reason includes deductive thought, but also insight, learning from experience, knowledge, and wisdom along with the will or capacity to choose. It's more than just being Data from Star Trek with purely computational thinking.

What's your thoughts or anyone else's on reason and our rational versus animal soul?