Understood. I've no where near enough knowledge of Plotinus to be of much help here. Just seemed like Spinoza successfully accomplished(contrary to his own aims) what Plotinus seems to have set out to do. So, I wondered if you agreed to that, trusting that you are familiar with Plotinus. Hence, my initial reply. If I had more time, I would spend some researching Plotinus, for the notion of monism interests me, despite not being able to agree with it.

:wink:

My own position demands a plurality of things. Beyond or 'beneath' that, I've no reason to believe that it is even possible for us to know much at all more about the origens of the universe. So, I stop when I've reached the limits...

Understood. I've no where near enough knowledge of Plotinus to be of much help here. Just seemed like Spinoza successfully accomplished(contrary to his own aims) what Plotinus seems to have set out to do. So, I wondered if you agreed to that, trusting that you are familiar with Plotinus. Hence, my initial reply. If I had more time, I would spend some researching Plotinus, for the notion of monism interests me, despite not being able to agree with it.

:wink:

My own position demands a plurality of things. Beyond or 'beneath' that, I've no reason to believe that it is even possible for us to know much at all more about the origens of the universe. So, I stop when I've reached the limits... — creativesoul

I have the impression that you took my previous comment personally, but it was not focused on you and in fact, on anyone. I just mentioned that Plotinus can easily be distorted and misunderstood. And yes, I agree that Spinoza continued - but not accomplished - from where Plotino started, however, in a different way to how Plotino first conceptualized- The One is not God -.

:grin:

No worries. I did not take that personally, just so you know. Rather, I just wanted to be clear about my intentions here.

Cheers!

No worries. I did not take that personally, just so you know. Rather, I just wanted to be clear about my intentions here.

Cheers! — creativesoul

:grin: :up:

It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to.
— praxis

This is practically what Plotino claims the One is. If you disagree, that is a matter of opinion, but if it is about Plotinus' philosophy, it is a misinterpretation. — Gus Lamarch

The One is not the Other, obviously.

The One is not the Other, obviously. — praxis

So you can joke?

It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to — Praxis

Ok Gus, would you like to further explain Plotino's view on Praxis's claim above? I hope this is a relevant quote, perhaps you'd like to expand on it?

There is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. His "One" cannot be any existing thing, nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents". — Plotino

Perhaps it would help to further define the terms he is using, such as transcendent and existents?

I agree that in agreeing with Praxis I'm just offering my own view of such things and not an interpretation of Plotino's view. My own view is that the observable physical reality around us is a single unified phenomena, and it's the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to things, parts, being and non-being etc. That is, the divisions we perceive are a property of the tool (thought) being used to make the observation, and not a property of that being observed.

How might you compare this theory to that of Plotino?

Ok Gus, would you like to further explain Plotino's view on Praxis's claim above? I hope this is a relevant quote, perhaps you'd like to expand on it?

There is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. His "One" cannot be any existing thing, nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents".
— Plotino — Hippyhead

The One, as comprehended by Plotinus is a "metaphysics of radical transcendence that extends beyond being and intellection." The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world, but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable "One". Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process.

"We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one."

If allowed, I would compare Plotinus's the "One" with the primordial singularity of our Universe. It Is the singularity, it was not and cannot Be, because these concepts apply only to existing things, which, being existent, are already less perfect than it and were "emanated" - using Plotinus's terms - from it. I would rather not even use articles to talk about "One". Instead of saying:

"The One Is"

Just simply say:

"The One"

For the mere fact of attributing it to a finite concept - Is - we are no longer talking about the One, but to something less than it.

I agree that in agreeing with Praxis I'm just offering my own view of such things and not an interpretation of Plotino's view. My own view is that the observable physical reality around us is a single unified phenomena, and it's the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to things, parts, being and non-being etc. That is, the divisions we perceive are a property of the tool (thought) being used to make the observation, and not a property of that being observed.

How might you compare this theory to that of Plotino? — Hippyhead

Superficially considered, Plotinus seems to offer an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo - out of nothing -, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. The metaphysics of emanation, however, just like the metaphysics of Creation, confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, as the source of the Being of all things that yet remains transcendent of them in its own nature; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus, using a venerable analogy, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

The first emanation is Nous - Intellect, Logos, Order, Thought, Reason, etc... -, identified metaphorically with the Demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first Will toward Good - the One -. From Nous proceeds the World Soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of Nous and the world soul.

The One is not the Other, obviously.
— praxis

So you can joke? — Gus Lamarch

Not at all. I claimed that it's not some other thing and you appeared to suggest that it is some other thing, that it’s Other, and One is not the Other.

Not at all. I claimed that it's not some other thing and you appeared to suggest that it is some other thing, that it’s Other, and One is not the Other. — praxis

Sorry for the comment, but I can't have a discussion with you when your argument is simply:

"I said that, and you got it wrong."

The One, as comprehended by Plotinus is a "metaphysics of radical transcendence that extends beyond being and intellection." — Gus Lamarch

Ok thanks. So the first challenge we face in understanding Plotinus is that few if any of us likely have any idea what that means.

I do get this part....

For the mere fact of attributing it to a finite concept - Is - we are no longer talking about the One, but to something less than it.

My translation would be, anything expressed in language will immediately fall victim to the divisive nature of thought, which by it's very nature can not express whatever lies beyond division.

This is helpful too...

Plotinus, using a venerable analogy, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation — Gus Lamarch

I would assert that it is the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to mental categories like "divine" vs."non-divine".

I claimed that it's not some other thing and you appeared to suggest that it is some other thing, — praxis

What if "things" don't actually exist but are instead conceptual inventions of the human mind?

When does a glass of water you drink become you? We could reasonably draw that boundary in any number of places, which illustrates that boundaries are convenient human conceptual creations. And if boundaries aren't real, things aren't either. And then we're left with the real world being a single unified phenomena. The One?

Ok thanks. So the first challenge we face in understanding Plotinus is that few if any of us likely have any idea what that means. — Hippyhead

This part is less complex than it appears to be. Plotinus is claiming that the "proper name" - if I may put it so - of the One is enough to conceive all of its abstraction.

"The One".

Without more, without less.

My translation would be, anything expressed in language will immediately fall victim to the divisive nature of thought, which by it's very nature can not express whatever lies beyond division. — Hippyhead

It is a good description of the same concept that Plotinus is conceptualizing, but I think it unnecessary- here, speaking from my personal opinion - this adaptation to the "new times". If I got - and I'm pretty sure that I got - the concept right with the proper words of Plotinus, anyone can do it.

I would assert that it is the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to mental categories like "divine" vs."non-divine". — Hippyhead

The "Nous" - intellect, logos, etc... - is already imperfect, then, rationalizing what Plotinus said about everything emanating from the One, it is obvious that the mind would be something, as he says, deficient.

You're not wrong about the mind, but you forgot that the very nature of the intellect is already something less than the One, so we cannot fully comprehend it.

I claimed that it's not some other thing and you appeared to suggest that it is some other thing,
— praxis

What if "things" don't actually exist but are instead conceptual inventions of the human mind?

When does a glass of water you drink become you? We could reasonably draw that boundary in any number of places, which illustrates that boundaries are convenient human conceptual creations. And if boundaries aren't real, things aren't either. And then we're left with the real world being a single unified phenomena. The One? — Hippyhead

Indeed, so how can there be an Other as Gus seems to claim there is?

Indeed, so how can there be an Other as Gus seems to claim there is? — praxis

Yeah Praxis, you really didn't understand anything, and worse, you don't even try to argue for your wrong point.

What’s there to argue, the One cannot have an other. How is it at all reasonable to claim otherwise?

This part is less complex than it appears to be. Plotinus is claiming that the "proper name" - if I may put it so - of the One is enough to conceive all of its abstraction. — Gus Lamarch

No idea what this means either.

It is a good description of the same concept that Plotinus is conceptualizing, but I think it unnecessary — Gus Lamarch

If everyone everywhere understands Plotinus in his own words, then translations would be unnecessary, agreed. In such a case, you might as well post Plotinus's writing in full, and leave it at that, no need for discussion.

but you forgot that the very nature of the intellect is already something less than the One, so we cannot fully comprehend it. — Gus Lamarch

I didn't forget it, that's what I'm saying. A tool which operates by a process of division will not be able to comprehend anything that lies beyond division. If true, then philosophy is pointless for such subjects, eh?

What’s there to argue, the One cannot have an other. — praxis

Seems a reasonable point to me.

The Catholics got caught up in this mess too. On one hand they state that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which if taken seriously would mean God is everything and everything is God, a state of non-division. But then they want God to be something separate too.

I see the problem as the attempt to use an inherently divisive medium like thought to try to discuss concepts like unity, The One etc, leading to an eternal muddle.

Yeah Praxis, you really didn't understand anything, and worse, you don't even try to argue for your wrong point. — Gus Lamarch

Praxis does fall victim to a bit of lazy snarkiness sometimes, and I know, having invented that myself. :-)

But here I think he's just being concise. I'm appreciating the lack of clutter and use of everyday language.

No idea what this means either. — Hippyhead

Plotinus can explain for me:

"Once you have uttered "The One" add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

The One.

If everyone everywhere understands Plotinus in his own words, then translations would be unnecessary, agreed. In such a case, you might as well post Plotinus's writing in full, and leave it at that, no need for discussion. — Hippyhead

The purpose of this discussion was practically to resolve why people confused the concept of the One of Plotinus with the theistic concept of God. The discussion followed a path that seems to seek to refute Plotinus. That is not the intention.

Praxis does fall victim to a bit of lazy snarkiness sometimes, and I know, having invented that myself. :-)

But here I think he's just being concise. I'm appreciating the lack of clutter and use of everyday language. — Hippyhead

The use of a more indirect language is ok, but he seems to be purposefully making tired and unfounded statements simply because he doesn't want to expatiate more on his views - that are wrong about Plotinus's views -. This is not a discussion then.

What’s there to argue, the One cannot have an other. How is it at all reasonable to claim otherwise? — praxis

You're not making sense. Please clarify.

the One cannot have an other — praxis

The challenge makes sense to me.

Is Plotinus claiming there is The One, and then other stuff which is outside of The One? Or is The One conceived to be all inclusive?

The purpose of this discussion was practically to resolve why people confused the concept of the One of Plotinus with the theistic concept of God. — Gus Lamarch

I like big picture ideas which are outside of the boring either/or construct of the God debate. If that's what's being explored I'm interested.

If you divide something, let’s say a piece of clay, into two pieces then you will no longer have One piece of clay, you’ll have two pieces of clay.

Is Plotinus claiming there is The One, and then other stuff which is outside of The One? — Hippyhead

Rather, Gus seemed to be saying that The One is other and inaccessible.

If that's what's being explored I'm interested. — Hippyhead

Now it is.

If you divide something, let’s say a piece of clay, into two pieces then you will no longer have One piece of clay, you’ll have two pieces of clay. — praxis

The point is that the One of this hypothetical "clay" would be the entire soil of the Earth.

Rather, Gus seemed to be saying that The One is other and inaccessible. — praxis

I'm not saying anything, Plotinus is saying that the One is inaccessible for anything other than himself.

If you divide something, let’s say a piece of clay, into two pieces then you will no longer have One piece of clay, you’ll have two pieces of clay.
— praxis

The point is that the One of this hypothetical "clay" would be the entire soil of the Earth. — Gus Lamarch

And everything, yes?

And everything, yes? — praxis

No, because everything emanates from it. Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One:

"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God."

Plotinus, Enneads

The Nous is the first appearance of duality, right? Speech of some kind becomes possible when the division between speaker and utterance is there, and so on.

How did you get interested in Neoplatonism?

How did you get interested in Neoplatonism? — frank

My first contact with Neoplatonism was through the study of Christian philosophy and theology - more specifically, Early Christianity - and somehow, I knew that the concept of the Trinity had been stolen - like all other Christian concepts - from some other group of people, or of a specific individual. It was then that I came to Plotinus and his philosophy, read and tried to understand his works -and contextualize them in the period of his life - and concepts.

If I may ask the question, why are you curious?

You just dont see Plotinus fans very often. I'll pm you an awesome source if you want. Plus if you want to read some Plato together, I would be up for that.