Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more.
...
Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live.
...
We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life.
...
When we say, then, that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not an unbroken succession of drinking-bouts and of revelry, not sexual lust, not the enjoyment of the fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. Of all this the beginning and the greatest good is wisdom. — Epicurus
Once the man is a Sage, the means of happiness, the way to good, are within, for nothing is good that lies outside him. Anything he desires further than this he seeks as a necessity, and not for himself but for a subordinate, for the body bound to him, to which since it has life he must minister the needs of life, not needs, however, to the true man of this degree. He knows himself to stand above all such things, and what he gives to the lower he so gives as to leave his true life undiminished.
Adverse fortune does not shake his felicity: the life so founded is stable ever. Suppose death strikes at his household or at his friends; he knows what death is, as the victims, if they are among the wise, know too. And if death taking from him his familiars and intimates does bring grief, it is not to him, not to the true man, but to that in him which stands apart from the Supreme, to that lower man in whose distress he takes no part. — Plotinus
Once the man is a Sage, the means of happiness, the way to good, are within, for nothing is good that lies outside him. — Plotinus
A life free of mental anxiety and open to the enjoyment of other pleasures was deemed equal to that of the gods. Indeed, it is from the gods themselves, via the simulacra that reach us from their abode, that we derive our image of blessed happiness, and prayer for the Epicureans consisted not in petitioning favors but rather in a receptivity to this vision. (Epicurus encouraged the practice of the conventional cults.) Although they held the gods to be immortal and indestructible (how this might work in a materialist universe remains unclear), human pleasure might nevertheless equal divine, since pleasure, Epicurus maintained (KD 19), is not augmented by duration (compare the idea of perfect health, which is not more perfect for lasting longer); the catastematic pleasure experienced by a human being completely free of mental distress and with no bodily pain to disturb him is at the absolute top of the scale. Nor is such pleasure difficult to achieve: it is a mark precisely of those desires that are neither natural nor necessary that they are hard to satisfy. — Epicurus
According to Sextus, one does not start out as a skeptic, but rather stumbles on to it. Initially, one becomes troubled by the kinds of disagreements focused on in Aenesidemus' modes and seeks to determine which appearances accurately represent the world and which explanations accurately reveal the causal histories of events. The motivation for figuring things out, Sextus asserts, is to become tranquil, i.e. to remove the disturbance that results from confronting incompatible views of the world. As the proto-skeptic attempts to sort out the evidence and discover the privileged perspectiveor the correct theory, he finds that for each account that purports to establish something true about the world there is another, equally convincing account, that purports to establish an opposed and incompatible view of the same thing. Being faced with this equipollence, he is unable to assent to either of the opposed accounts and thereby suspends judgment. This, of course, is not what he set out to do. But by virtue of his intellectual integrity, he is simply not able to arrive at a conclusion and so he finds himself without any definite view. What he also finds is that the tranquility that he originally thought would come only by arriving at the truth, follows upon his suspended judgment as a shadow follows a body.
Sextus provides a vivid story to illustrate this process. A certain painter, Apelles, was trying to represent foam on the mouth of the horse he was painting. But each time he applied the paint he failed to get the desired effect. Growing frustrated, he flung the sponge, on which he had been wiping off the paint, at the picture, inadvertently producing the effect he had been struggling to achieve (PH 1.28-29). The analogous point in the case of seeking the truth is that the desired tranquility only comes indirectly, not by giving up the pursuit of truth, but rather by giving up the expectation that we must acquire truth to get tranquility. It is a strikingly Zen-like point: one cannot intentionally acquire a peaceful, tranquil state but must let it happen as a result of giving up the struggle. But again, giving up the struggle for the skeptic does not mean giving up the pursuit of truth. The skeptic continues to investigate in order to protect himself against the deceptions and seductions of reason that lead to our holding definite views. — IEP
For me this "heaven lies within" is something like the indestructible core of the wisdom traditions — R-13
The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.8); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension.
Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — Heidegger
:-} Then why do they keep feeding their bodies, maintain hygiene and so forth? What happens in this phantasy realm is obviously of interest to them.I think Plotinus (and other mystics) depicts worldly existence as a kind of illusory state (cf 'maya' or samsara) analogous to a fantasy realm or game kind of like Dungeons and Dragons, but with real blood. — Wayfarer
What's there beyond material existence?The former was a materialist who didn't believe in anything beyond material existence. — Wayfarer
The thing is, it's impossible to break out of the game, and even if it was, it's not worth the effort.Plotinus wants to break out of the game altogether (like the scene in Mockingjay when Katniss breaks through the 'dome' and reveal the whole set-up as being a contrivance. There are many other analogies in science fiction films.) — Wayfarer
Simple, he'd agree with it. The pleasures of the mind are always greater and more certain than the pleasures of the body.What do you reckon Epicurus would make of that? — Wayfarer
*facepalm* :s - yeah, when you can't disprove something, you throw up your hands and say it's ridiculous! Great attitude to have, I should start adopting it!Epicureanism is so utterly ridiculous that it's probably one of the few, maybe perhaps the only, "mainstream" philosophy that Plotinus simply ignores outright in his writings. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie
Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility. The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning
What's there beyond material existence? — Agustino
it's impossible to break out of the game, and even if it was, it's not worth the effort. — Agustino
I've read it. What's your point?I recommend a reading of Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, where these issues are discussed in detail. — Wayfarer
"The beatific vision" is temporary in nature. There is no "breaking out of the game" because of its temporary nature. After you have the "beatific vision" you still live in this world, not another world.'Breaking out of the game' is an analogue for theosis, 'the beatific vision', where the 'worldly realm' or the 'domain of the senses' is analogous to being 'part of the game', but the 'awakening' or 'new birth' is seeing 'beyond the game'. — Wayfarer
Because the proposed solution doesn't make sense. Now I may be appreciative of the mystical tradition, but I don't agree with it fundamentally. Fundamentally I'm an Aristotelian, not a Platonist. I appreciate the mystical tradition more than I appreciate New Atheism, but that doesn't mean I'm in full agreement with it or the whole way of thinking and relating to the world that it advocates. For me happiness is always found in the material world, not in some other realm. Virtue is the path to happiness in this world, not (primarily) to happiness in some other world.you give the impression of not being interested in either the question, or the proposed solution, so I responded accordingly. — Wayfarer
Because the proposed solution doesn't make sense. — Agustino
But thinking that some "beatific vision" is what will change your life, or how you will find meaning in life is nothing short of deluded. No experience, no matter how great, can provide a meaning to life in this world that has nothing to do with this world. Think about it - when you experience a great piece of music, or when in love you stare in your beloved's eyes and the whole world stands still - the experience ends. Human beings are fallen to the point there is no escaping this world. We can get glimpses - beatific visions - of another state, but they all end, and then we're thrown back into this world. We are creatures of the earth, born to live and die as creatures of the earth.Which is why I employed the analogy of 'breaking out of the game'. The 'beatific vision', which you referred to, is not 'a temporary state', but a transition to an entirely new way of being - 'new heaven, new earth', as it is said somewhere. So Plotinus was one of the well-springs of that kind of visionary state. — Wayfarer
No I don't think they dismiss them, only that they realise the limited significance such events have to living.In relation to Epicurus, and other materialists, they also, obviously, dismiss such ideas, but the question I have is, have they even begun to understand them? — Wayfarer
But whatever good Plotinus found is especially subject to decay. Are you enlightened 100% of the time? Of course not. Why not? Because reality is fallen - regardless of what you do, you will never be in that state 100% of the time or anywhere near it.But from the viewpoint of a Plotinus, whatever good Epicurus makes of it, is temporary, transient, subject to decay, unsatisfactory. — Wayfarer
But all well-being is in the context of worldly existence. Even the beatific vision. And Epicurus isn't the best comparison, Aristotle is. The mystical isn't other-worldly, but decidedly this worldly.It is noteworthy that Epicurus employs the traditional terminology of philosophy - ataraxia, eudomonia, etc - but that they have a different referent, i.e. maximising well-being in the context of worldly existence. — Wayfarer
The only thing they like in Epicurus is his denial of gods, not his ethics.Epicurus is far more likely to be acceptable to the modern secular intelligentsia, for that very reason. But I'm not amongst them. — Wayfarer
But thinking that some "beatific vision" is what will change your life, or how you will find meaning in life is nothing short of deluded. — Agustino
And what does a meta-cognitive change have to do with anything? Really now... I still have to provide for my kids and so forth. What has changed? Have I become better able to provide for them? Has my relationship with my wife improved? Am I more loving, not in an abstract kind of way, but in a practical kind of way?Well, I really have to differ with you on that. It's not a matter of 'having an experience' - I'm referring to the meta-cognitive change that is called 'metanoia' in Platonistic philosophy. I thought, as you had referred from time to time to Orthodox philosophy that you might understand these things, but apparently not, sorry for the bother. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.