tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4040830792665093866..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Review of KraussEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22479301124419372612012-05-19T10:52:20.692-07:002012-05-19T10:52:20.692-07:00Without a trace of irony, Krauss approvingly cites...<i>Without a trace of irony, Krauss approvingly cites physicist Frank Wilczek’s unflattering comparison of string theory to a rigged game of darts: “First, one throws the dart against a blank wall, and then one goes to the wall and draws a bull’s-eye around where the dart landed.” Yet that is exactly Krauss’ procedure. He defines “nothing” and other key concepts precisely so as to guarantee that only the physicist’s methods he is comfortable with can be applied to the question of the universe’s origin—and that only a nontheological answer will be forthcoming.</i><br /><br />Exactly. The atheists themselves don't seem to see the need for precise, exact, and consistent definitions or reasoning, yet chide believers in God for allegedly not doing so.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the underling atheist crawlers and cheerleaders come along and---also without any reasoning---dismiss the obvious fallacies pointed out by theists.<br /><br />Where's the scientific reasoning? Where's the strict rigorous numbering and inference-derivation documentation and proofs of the atheists claims, like any logic, sets, and functions course exercises? I don't see a single atheist scholar that is even attempting such a thing. It's the theists who are taking the analysis of issues to greater degrees of argumentative meticulousness, not the atheists.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43010542315847356302012-05-19T02:52:11.581-07:002012-05-19T02:52:11.581-07:00Dat Gummit ... u_U I was betting on the country bo...Dat Gummit ... u_U I was betting on the country boy.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35692941926737464892012-05-18T22:48:12.269-07:002012-05-18T22:48:12.269-07:00. . . and I was just about to post.. . . and I was just about to post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52508474237469964692012-05-18T22:42:35.760-07:002012-05-18T22:42:35.760-07:00I have deleted my replies. I felt I was becoming t...I have deleted my replies. I felt I was becoming too acrimonious and heated. I wish you well in your spiritual journey, whatever our disagreements.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47831258111881579382012-05-18T10:48:29.536-07:002012-05-18T10:48:29.536-07:00continued
This is a vision far different from th...continued <br /><br /><i>This is a vision far different from the simplistic one of oblivion that you are so keen to give, and so inept at giving, to the Classical Platonists.</i><br /><br />This last quotation has nothing to do with reversion and unity. Furthermore, there are some controversial statements in it. For instance, the claim that "this does not mean that the One is compelled to generate being, life, and intelligence," is disputed by scholars. Gilson, for instance, would argue the opposite point.<br /><br />And please spare me the accusation of giving "inept" explanations. You have demonstrated that you are completely oblivious to basic facts regarding the Christian engagement with these philosophers, and you have a habit of conflating very diverse thinkers and traditions. If I am inept, you are downright criminal and imbecilic.<br /><br /><i>At least I recognize I am not Uzdavingys or Gerson or Kingsley, I recognize I'm not an expert. You are more ignorant than I am, yet you are loath to show humility in such matters it seems, indeed you scorn it.</i><br /><br />You have been informed by a small number of contemporary writers, while I am arguing from a position that draws from two thousand years of Christian tradition and many classicists and philosophers. Yet, every time that I bring this up, you accuse me of "simplistic" distortions and rank "misrepresentation." Now you accuse me of lacking humility? Perhaps I would show less "scorn" if you weren't so insistent upon derision of any view but your own. Rather than actually engaging me, you have repeatedly affirmed, without humility, that you are right--and without referencing sources. In fact, I've protested about this in every single post, so don't revert to some position of epistemic humility. It's too late for that. Your selection of scholarship is narrow and it supports your view and you brook no alternative--and you even assert this when you are completely unfamiliar with the thinker in question, relying upon your intuition and speculation to demonstrate your point.<br /><br /><i>Finally I do not think I'm wrong to take Hart et al with a pinch of salt, seeing as it is their position you are putting across so ineptly. It is a position that is clearly very biased to hang a lot on.</i><br /><br />Again, Hart is operating from the standard Eastern and Western Christian interpretations of Plotinus. They are non-controversial among Christians and they are not marginal or idiosyncratic. I've made this point in the past; stop referring to him in this way otherwise--it's dishonest.<br /><br />Serious question: Why are you even a Christian? You seem to hold to versions of platonism that are plainly heretical. The Church Fathers battled the excesses of platonism and its corrosive influence on Christian revelation with their lives and with their blood. You certainly are more interested in pagan philosophy than in the Church Fathers--you know plenty about the former and next to nil about the latter. You seem to have strong heterodoxical tendencies.<br /><br /><i>To create the absolute distinction you are trying to here it will take a lot more than such brief and empty assertions.</i><br /><br />I'm actually repeating Hart (and Milbank) on this point. I've referenced them at length in the past, as you know. This should have been obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24400971589338169732012-05-18T10:47:16.831-07:002012-05-18T10:47:16.831-07:00continued
Your quote has only the clause to at al...continued<br /><br /><i>Your quote has only the clause to at all come close to supporting your point. It is clear, however, that the negation being talked about is not simply oblivion. This is because the second clause refers this negation to simply putting away all otherness and ineffable union with the Divine, which seems to be referring to the submission and alignment of all aspect of particularity to Unity in the One. That which puts away otherness or Unites ineffably to the One would not sensibly be talked about as being annihilated. The second paragraph confirms this view. It refers to a loving union and assimilation, which imply the opposite of annihilation. The term annihilation is used, but it is in quotation marks, as if to underscore a nuanced use and in the context of the rest of the paragraph it makes much more sense to understand this as the total submission to the Divine Will and Unity than total annihilation or oblivion.</i><br /><br />You are projecting your own interpretation onto this text. You are referring to parts of the text that refer to the process of coming to unity through contemplation; however, reversion eventually leads to the splitting of the soul into multiple parts and the erasure of memory when total unity is achieved, as I've referenced elsewhere. <br /><br />But even if it weren't the case, so what? (1) Why accept this interpretation over other theologians, philosophers, and classicists with an alternative interpretation? And (2) reversion is still a process of negation that <i>implicitly</i>, if not explicitly, destroys particularity. To paper this over with a mystical gloss that adds nuance does nothing to address this fault. Given the structure of reality as procession and reversion, the return is ultimately a loss of multiplicity, identity, and particularity.<br /><br />And denying that this is what platonists intended won't do. If Descartes rose from the grave tomorrow and groused, "I didn't intend for the extreme division between subjectivity and objectivity that Heidegger, Derrida, and others talked about," it doesn't matter. He might not have intended it, but it was a consequence of his philosophy. Similarly, if Nietzsche popped back up for a day and protested, "My argument that God is dead and nihilism should rule the day does not directly support National Socialism and even criticizes nationalism and anti-anti-semitism," then the astute observer could just claim that in banishing God, he banished all moral restraints, so it doesn't matter that he had prohibitions against certain things. I could go on. Ockham did not intend to foster atheism, but since the only way to know God for him was by fideism and his nominalism distanced the world from God in other respects, it was the natural result. <br /><br />The point is that these philosophies don't perfectly match up with reality, so even if Plotinus (or other Neoplat's, but especially Plotinus) would deny the analysis attributed to them (and I'm not saying they would), someone from a different position, say, Christianity, can claim that their position actually implies it. <br /><br />And it does. If you think otherwise, then you aren't gainsaying me, but your reputed faith. Take it up with St. Gregory of Nyssa and nearly every major theologian and philosopher of the Christian tradition that followed after them. They would all ask you the same question: why are you adhering to a heretical tradition over the Christian interpretation of it? Why are you prioritizing this interpretation over your own?<br /><br />Finally, I need to point out that I've made this point before, multiple times, and each time you have failed to address it.<br /><br /><i>As the foreword of the same work notes; . . .<br /><br />This is no simplistic conception of oblivion.</i><br /><br />This is not about unity; this is about contemplation until it reaches the state of unity. When it gets there oblivion is entailed.<br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39628698152532076302012-05-18T10:45:11.437-07:002012-05-18T10:45:11.437-07:00continued
You simply do not back up your asserti...continued <br /><br /><i>You simply do not back up your assertions about the relationship of the Western or Eastern Fathers to Platonism. What is well known is that Western Fathers did not directly access the Neoplatonic authors, rather they had rather loose translations. These translation includes Plotinus, but came out of the Platonist tradition that had grown up after him. So Augustine read one of these Latin translation of Plotinus, for example. You clearly have no knowledge of such facts. Googlebooks didn't relate this to you?</i><br /><br />Yeah, sure. It's not like I just finished a graduate level course on medieval philosophy, or anything like that; and it's not like I actually quoted books that I had read for that class, or anything like that. Oh, and it's not like you are making anything but a bald assertion, or anything like that. Oh, oh, and it's not like I mentioned that the West's works on Platonism were heavily redacted, having chiefly came from Augustine--who ONLY read Plato, Plotinus, and Porphyry--until the introduction of texts in the 12th and 13th centuries, or anything like that. Look, there's a reason that Proclus' work is barely covered in my course: it has a marginal influence in the Christian tradition compared to Plotinus and Porphyry. Those two are the important ones. Provide support for your assertions, like I did, if you think otherwise.<br /><br /><i>Despite another flagrant misinterpretation the quote from Plotinus supports my point. In it he clearly refers to particularity within total Unity.</i><br /><br />I've responded to this argument multiple times--and you've failed to address me criticism each time. To discuss a platonist's understanding of participation is different than discussing what happens during reversion. Participation is refers to the relationship to reality in the great chain of being during procession and reversion, but not what happens during unity with the One. THIS is what you need to address in Plotinus. THIS is what I'm discussing as the negation of particularity and multiplicity. To argue, as you have, that at all other times, unity and multiplicity coexist is besides the point. Your cat felix may be a particular that participates in a form, but felix is also reverting back to the One in a long process that will ultimately lead to negation. <br /><br />Your inability to grasp this basic distinction does not inspire confidence.<br /><br /><i>Your quote of Uzdavinys simply does not prove your point. Let us not forget Uzdavinys was a Sufi Muslim who also was very close to practicising Platonism. He therefore is hardly likely to consider Platonism as entailing annihilation and oblivion.</i><br /><br />For someone who wants to avoid confusion, you sure do a lot of conflating of different thinkers and traditions. Sufi platonism and Plotinus' platonism are different. The book that I referenced by him was describing the latter, not the former. Stop reading your interpretation into these matters without first critically appraising the text.<br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16982225277736403862012-05-18T10:43:48.645-07:002012-05-18T10:43:48.645-07:00Westcountryman,
Your first paragraph is a nonsens...Westcountryman,<br /><br /><i>Your first paragraph is a nonsensical rant whereby Peter Kingsley (who is repeatedly quoted as authority in the work of Uzdavinys you yourself quote later in your post!) is a fringe figure and modernist philosophers are somehow hard references. Other than that what you mean by hard references seems to be what supports you. I thought you had more sense than to take such treacherous bedfellows. No doubt you feel you can shed them at will when they become inconvenient.</i><br /><br />Please. You dismiss the entirety of Christian interpretation from St. Gregory of Nyssa and Blessed Augustine, through the Byzantines and Scholastics, and even through contemporary theologians like Hart. What type of Christian sides with Proclus over the Church Fathers? What type of Christian dismisses the entirety of the Christian interpretation of Platonism for vulgar platonism? What type of Christian is completely ignorant of the Church Fathers on this matter, but well-versed in Iamblichus. These are the people that I'm siding with uniformely and not "modern philosophers"--and I've made this perfectly clear. You are the one who has been misrepresenting me. Stop acting so indignant. It's abusive and dishonest.<br /><br />Rather, this is what my point has been: the interpretation of Plotinus that I have discussed is non-controversial amongst (1) the entirety of Church tradition (which you dismiss "with a grain of salt," and (2) all the philosophers that I've come across, modern or not. You cannot dismiss all of them "with a grain of salt," especially since you have utterly failed to provide an interpretation of Plotinus rooted in the commentaries of actual philosophers or theologians. Name dropping with a claim that these guys really support you is not an argument when you cannot reproduce their positions when challenged--especially when your actual attempt at exegeting Plotinus is timid and transparently uninformed. This makes you look like you are more interested in advancing a particular interpretation than actual engagement with these thinkers on their own terms.<br /><br />(And yes, Peter Kingsley is a controversial figure. Many question his interpretations of Parmenides. That you have asserted, without qualification, that his interpretation is the correct one, exposes you to be an uncritical idealogue with little interest in actual scholarly disputation and inclined toward interpretations that suit your fancy.)<br /><br /><i>I challenge you to support the position the discussion was about only Plotinus until you randomly decided to suggest Plotinus was the only figure you were referring to. It is you who is being dishonest, as such tactics prove.</i><br /><br />I've been talking about the Church Fathers, medievals, and contemporary theologians. For all of them, Plotinus is the key figure. Proclus is only important for the three dozen significant Neoplatonists that followed him in the last 1700 years. It was you who read later Neoplatonism into this debate because (1) this is apparently your bag and (2) you thought the Church Fathers and medievals engaged Iamblichus and Proclus, rather than Plotinus. I assumed that a Christian who knew a lot about Platonism would then know the basics of Christianity's engagement with it in late antiquity and the middle ages--I was wrong. You were ignorant of this context and misunderstood my arguments--but this says more about you and your priorities than it does about me.<br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87462939870852962822012-05-18T08:01:17.337-07:002012-05-18T08:01:17.337-07:00As the foreword of the same work notes;
"Fin...As the foreword of the same work notes;<br /><br />"Finally we are brought to the One, the ultimate first prin-ciple, beyond thought and conception, which can only be known through negation, and the negation of negation. Yet we must some-how conceive of it as connected with the divine intellect and as the cause of the universe. And mystical union with the One is the final goal of the soul; the reason behind its desire (<br />eros <br />) for beauty.Plotinus, in<br />Ennead <br />VI, attempts to work out a metaphysics in which the One, as the highest hypostasis, is somehow responsible,out of abundance, for the procession of Intellect and then throughIntellect, Soul (these making up the three hypostases) and throughSoul, Nature and the visible cosmos. All three exist in each indi-vidual soul. We are each of us an intelligible world in miniature. If we can recognize this and purify ourselves, “carve our own statue,”and find our higher soul, which remains in the noetic world, we reach a stage of illumination. This penultimate stage prepares us for union with the One; for which we can only wait, as one waitsfor the sunrise."<br /><br />This is no simplistic conception of oblivion.<br /><br />And again;<br /><br />"<br />For Plotinus, the One is not a “negativ-ity” in the profane sense. Although philosophizing about the Onehas the concrete result of nullifying itself, this attitude, according to John Bussanich, is “neither nihilist nor antiphilosophical, but .. . points to a soteriontology.”<br />27<br />The One is boiling with activity,though it is viewed as simple and non-composite, i.e., without parts and internal or external relations. The term “One” does not really describe the Principle, which is beyond form; it is therefore false even to say of it that it is one. Being formless (<br />amorphon <br />) and infinite (<br />apeiron <br />), the One, as a perfect actuality (<br />energeia <br />), contains everything and lacks nothing,thus having the supreme power (<br />dunamis <br />) to generate the . This does not mean that the One is compelled to generate being, life, and intelligence: it simply causes the existence of all manifested reality by the principle that its inexhaustible perfection and freedom (itself beyond necessity) produces by sheer undimin-ished giving, like water flowing from a source or light radiating from the sun. Since the One is the universal cause of all things, it only transcendent but also immanent: its omnipresence fills all things. The final causality of the One is related to the actualization of Intellect and the mystical return of the soul to its source."<br /><br />This is a vision far different from the simplistic one of oblivion that you are so keen to give, and so inept at giving, to the Classical Platonists.<br /><br />At least I recognise I am not Uzdavingys or Gerson or Kingsley, I recognise I'm not an expert. You are more ignorant than I am, yet you are loath to show humility in such matters it seems, indeed you scorn it. <br /><br />Finally I do not think I'm wrong to take Hart et al with a pinch of salt, seeing as it is their position you are putting across so ineptly. It is a position that is clearly very biased to hang a lot on.<br /><br /><i>Neoplatonism denies the legitimacy of this "ontological interval" because its essential relation is between the unoriginate One and the originate procession. Thus negation of multiplicity is embedded in its cosmographical structure. </i><br /><br />To create the absolute distinction you are trying to here it will take a lot more than such brief and empty assertions.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88517587377201085752012-05-18T07:55:49.827-07:002012-05-18T07:55:49.827-07:00Your first paragraph is a nonsensical rant whereby...Your first paragraph is a nonsensical rant whereby Peter Kingsley (who is repeatedly quoted as authority in the work of Uzdavinys you yourself quote later in your post!) is a fringe figure and modernist philosophers are somehow hard references. Other than that what you mean by hard references seems to be what supports you. I thought you had more sense than to take such treacherous bedfellows. No doubt you feel you can shed them at will when they become inconvenient.<br /><br />I challenge you to support the position the discussion was about only Plotinus until you randomly decided to suggest Plotinus was the only figure you were referring to. It is you who is being dishonest, as such tactics prove.<br /><br />You simply do not back up your assertions about the relationship of the Western or Eastern Fathers to Platonism. What is well known is that Western Fathers did not directly access the Neoplatonic authors, rather they had rather loose translations. These translation includes Plotinus, but came out of the Platonist tradition that had grown up after him. So Augustine read one of these Latin translation of Plotinus, for example. You clearly have no knowledge of such facts. Googlebooks didn't relate this to you?<br /><br />Despite another flagrant misinterpretation the quote from Plotinus supports my point. In it he clearly refers to particularity within total Unity.<br /><br />Your quote of Uzdavinys simply does not prove your point. Let us not forget Uzdavinys was a Sufi Muslim who also was very close to practicising Platonism. He therefore is hardly likely to consider Platonism as entailing annihilation and oblivion. Your quote has only the clause to at all come close to supporting your point. It is clear, however, that the negation being talked about is not simply oblivion. This is because the second clause refers this negation to simply putting away all otherness and ineffable union with the Divine, which seems to be referring to the submission and alignment of all aspect of particularity to Unity in the One. That which puts away otherness or Unites ineffably to the One would not sensibly be talked about as being annihilated. The second paragraph confirms this view. It refers to a loving union and assimilation, which imply the opposite of annihilation. The term annihilation is used, but it is in quotation marks, as if to underscore a nuanced use and in the context of the rest of the paragraph it makes much more sense to understand this as the total submission to the Divine Will and Unity than total annihilation or oblivion.<br /><br />Continued...Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73055276561753107362012-05-18T07:27:14.364-07:002012-05-18T07:27:14.364-07:00Actually Sean, using the Occam's Razor in this...Actually Sean, using the Occam's Razor in this case makes no sense.<br /><br />Thinking of essences or not thinking of essences changes the whole thing. <br /><br />So no.... it is not a candidate for Occam's Razor... Unless you are about to become some sort of positivist XD<br /><br />But anyways... I guess you mean, it offers no insights of the system in question. Neither your Conceptualism ....Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62103716261349760782012-05-18T06:21:04.940-07:002012-05-18T06:21:04.940-07:00continued
Let's do a tally. In your posts, yo...continued<br /><br />Let's do a tally. In your posts, you have accused me of willful misrepresentation. Now, you just dismiss Hart et al. "with a grain of salt," even though you are "far from an expert in the exact distinctions between the ancient Platonists," Plotinus especially. You have also been confusing Proclus and Plotinus with one another, citing the former when the topic is the latter. You then also accuse me of a "flawed" historical summary of Neoplatonism, when that was obviously not what I was giving. Then you speculated about who the Latin and Greek Fathers interacted with, asserting such as fact--and you were dead wrong on both accounts. You even quote Uzdavinys on the influence of Plotinus and Iamblichus on later Neoplatonists, as if that has anything to do with the Church Fathers. Finally, you then engage in speculation about Plotinus, who you "think" I get wrong. Never do you provide a definitive counter-explanation; instead, you merely suggest alternative readings. What's wrong? I thought that you were familiar with these philosophers to "know" that I definitely get them wrong and that Hart et al's interpretations are definitely a distortion of Plotinus. Why does this look so inconsistent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6664317416564438282012-05-18T06:20:48.446-07:002012-05-18T06:20:48.446-07:00continued
As Algis Uzdavinys notes;
"For t...continued<br /><br /><i>As Algis Uzdavinys notes; <br /><br />"For this reason Plotinus was never to become the supreme authority for the later Neoplatonists who agreed with Iamblichus."</i><br /><br />Again, we have been talking about Plotinus, who was more influential on the CHRISTIANS. Stop trying to shift the topic. Hart is engaging Plotinus. I am engaging Plotinus. The Church Fathers engaged Plotinus.<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, although I'm far from an expert in the exact distinctions between the ancient Platonists, I think you give an inaccurate idea of Plotinus's thought.</i><br /><br />If you are unfamiliar with him, then look it up and come back. You have no business speculating--which is what you have blasted me for doing--about figures with which you are unfamiliar. This is precisely what you are doing in your quotation of Plotinus, which is about participation, not the the reversion (epistrophe) back to the One.<br /><br />In the mean time, here is a quotation from Algis Uzdavinys:<br /><br />"The awakening in the presence of the Good is the result of the removal of multiplicity through negation, of putting away all 'otherness' and reaching the ineffable union, since it is only by the One that we see the One. . . .<br /><br />Therefore the 'experience' of the Good (although the soul already has ceased to be itself and became one with its transcendent source) is modeled as loving union. This love incites the soul to assimilate itself to the pure object it loves. And since the One transcends both form (eidos, morphe) and intellection (noesis), whoever loves it must discard all form, image, and thought. . . . Strictly speaking, the divine Intellect is eternally united with the One and the soul shares this union when it is 'annihilated' and realizes its ineffable roots in the Good." (The Heart of Plotinus: The Essential Enneads, pg. 34-35).<br /><br />Whether this is absolute 'annihilation' (and it very much looks like it is) is beside the point. Plotinus only allows the soul to reach salvation through a process of reversion that denies multiplicity. This is essentially different from Christian "mysticism"--as both Catholic and Orthodox "mystics"--will attest to (and don't quote C.S. Lewis--he was right on some things, but heterodoxical on others). True, both of them express an emptying of the ego, but Christianity does not deny the multiplicity and distinction as if it were an imperfection. That's the key difference. (See "The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition" by Andrew Louth.) Neoplatonism denies the legitimacy of this "ontological interval" because its essential relation is between the unoriginate One and the originate procession. Thus negation of multiplicity is embedded in its cosmographical structure. In Christianity, on the other hand, the essential relationship is between the persons of the Trinity, which is an arrangement that permanently legitimizes multiplicity in unity. This is the only metaphysics that respects creation as gift--all others end in violence or negation, lacking any means to resolve the many and the one into a peaceful relation. This is why Christians put revelation and theology before metaphysics--anything less leads to heterodoxy. (And this is something virtually all of the Church Fathers and most of the scholastics, including Aquinas and Bonaventure, believed.)<br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3592902359426780452012-05-18T06:20:06.127-07:002012-05-18T06:20:06.127-07:00I have a great respect for Hart, but, like Stratfo...<i>I have a great respect for Hart, but, like Stratford Caldecott (who I also respect a lot), he has made this notion of oblivion central to his critiquq of Platonism and non-Christian, traditional metaphysics and mysticism in general (these are the sources you no doubt get your argument from). I would therefore take what they say with a grain of salt.<br /><br />Other than that you have given quotes that were open to broad interpretation. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, like the Stanford one is a product of modern scholarship and most likely will be influenced by 'philosophers' who are totally modern, disciples of Descartes, Kant, or Nietzsche, I would take it with a major grain of salt as well.</i><br /><br />Translation: I'm not interested in interpretations that don't accord with my views, so I will continually dismiss them and accuse them of a 'simplisitic' reading that ultimately fails in my view. My preference is for a very narrow reading, partially reliant on fringe figures like Peter Kingsley. Since I don't want to actually engage the scholarly debate by backing up my views with actual hard references, I will continue my dishonest practices. Besides, you failed to answer my trivial objections whereby I project the concerns of modern "common sense" two thousand years into the past, as if that were valid.<br /><br />Do you think that was unfair? Tough. You've dismissed my view as based upon gross misinterpretations, "simplistic," and as willfully "misconstruing them" for a dozen posts. Now it is obvious that it's valid, but that you just don't like it.<br /><br /><i>I actually am well aware of the distinctions between the Platonists. I have simply been keeping avoiding needless complications.</i><br /><br />Then why did you complicate it by introducing Proclus into a discussion on Plotinus?<br /><br /><i>Your historical summary is flawed. It was Iamblichus, not Plotinus, who was central to the thought of the later Platonists, such as Proclus.</i><br /><br />I never made the claim that Plotinus was more influential on later Neoplatonists; rather, I claimed that Plotinus exerted more influence on CHRISTIANS than did Proclus. Now you are misrepresenting me.<br /><br /><i>The Western Church Fathers, like Augustine, generally only had access to Latin epitomes and summaries of Platonic thought, mostly deriving, I believe, from the later Platonists and therefore more centrally Iamblichus than Plotinus.</i><br /><br />No. Blessed Augustine's interaction was with Plotinus. This is practically common knowledge--and anyone who knew what they were talking about would be aware of this. "On almost all points where Scripture gave no lead, Augustine accepted from the <i>Timaeus</i> and <i>Meno</i> of Plato and the <i>Enneads</i> of Plotinus the explanations they gave of the intellectual problems that engaged his attention, and if a reader of Augustine is in doubt as to the origin of a particular philosophical idea, he will usually find the answer in Plotinus" (David Knowles, "The Evolution of Medieval Thought" Second Edition, pg. 32).<br /><br /><i>The Eastern Fathers had more original material, but I still believe it was the later Platonists who they were most influenced by, more than Plotinus (except for Clement of Alexandria and Origen and those Eastern Fathers writing before c.300 AD).</i><br /><br />No, most of the Greek Fathers dealt with Middle Platonism until St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was the first major Christian figure to really engage Plotinus--but even then, most of his contact with Platonism is through figures like Origin and the Middle Platonists (Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, pg. 400). Again, you don't know what you are talking about. <br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20350278629088329582012-05-18T04:32:50.443-07:002012-05-18T04:32:50.443-07:00...Continued.
Furthermore, although I'm far f......Continued.<br /><br />Furthermore, although I'm far from an expert in the exact distinctions between the ancient Platonists, I think you give an inaccurate idea of Plotinus's thought. In particular, it is again not clear what is truly the meaning of your quotes. It is certainly the case that Plotinus and the Platonists did not accept the Christian idea of bodily resurrection, that I will agree with you on. Phrases such as "renouncing autonomous existence" do not necessarily denote simple oblivion for any particular Self. They could just as easily be taken to simply denote utter submission to the Divine Will and the complete Unity of a particular human being, in all aspects of his being, to the Divine in such a way that, as described, combines total Unity and the proper places of the particular. Indeed, what that quote appears to be mostly stressing is what the author feels is Proclus's greater stress on creation as Theophany as compared to Plotinus's alleged focus on creation as Fall or degeneration. <br /><br />We may quote Plotinus himself seeming to the position I have been trying to communicate;<br /><br />"It belongs to the nature of the All to make its entire content reproduce, most felicitously, the Reason-Principles in which it participates; every particular thing is the image within matter of a Reason-Principle which itself images a pre-material Reason-Principle: thus every particular entity is linked to that Divine Being in whose likeness it is made, the divine principle which the soul contemplated and contained in the act of each creation. Such mediation and representation there must have been since it was equally impossible for the created to be without share in the Supreme, and for the Supreme to descend into the created....<br />Nothing, in fact, is far away from anything; things are not remote: there is, no doubt, the aloofness of difference and of mingled natures as against the unmingled; but selfhood has nothing to do with spatial position, and in unity itself there may still be distinction."<br /><br />Now here he appears to be saying that each particular thing is a prolongation of a Reason-Principle (which are ultimately prolongations o0f the One) that are bound in Unity while also be particular and distinct.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86446945870341435212012-05-18T04:32:19.788-07:002012-05-18T04:32:19.788-07:00Anonymous,
I have a great respect for Hart, but, ...Anonymous,<br /><br />I have a great respect for Hart, but, like Stratford Caldecott (who I also respect a lot), he has made this notion of oblivion central to his critiquq of Platonism and non-Christian, traditional metaphysics and mysticism in general (these are the sources you no doubt get your argument from). I would therefore take what they say with a grain of salt.<br /><br />Other than that you have given quotes that were open to broad interpretation. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, like the Stanford one is a product of modern scholarship and most likely will be influenced by 'philosophers' who are totally modern, disciples of Descartes, Kant, or Nietzsche, I would take it with a major grain of salt as well.<br /><br />You just show support for your position. You must also answer my queries and my explanations. You simply have ignored many of my questions, such as the common sense one of does it seem likely the Platonists were preaching a doctrine that claimed annihilation and oblivion as the summit of spiritual ascent, or my explanations of the Platonic conceptions of unity. Also I gave works that I recommended reading. This is not the place, I feel, to simply past a few quotes.<br /><br />I actually am well aware of the distinctions between the Platonists. I have simply been keeping avoiding needless complications. Your historical summary is flawed. It was Iamblichus, not Plotinus, who was central to the thought of the later Platonists, such as Proclus. The Western Church Fathers, like Augustine, generally only had access to Latin epitomes and summaries of Platonic thought, mostly deriving, I believe, from the later Platonists and therefore more centrally Iamblichus than Plotinus. The Eastern Fathers had more original material, but I still believe it was the later Platonists who they were most influenced by, more than Plotinus (except for Clement of Alexandria and Origen and those Eastern Fathers writing before c.300 AD).<br /><br />As Algis Uzdavinys notes; <br /><br />"For this reason Plotinus was never to become the supreme authority for the later Neoplatonists who agreed with Iamblichus."<br /><br />Continued....<br /><br />nct.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34032930395641539262012-05-18T02:14:45.739-07:002012-05-18T02:14:45.739-07:00@ Anonymous
You just agreed with me. In other wor...@ Anonymous<br /><i><br />You just agreed with me. In other words, the claim that "there are eight (or ten, or any number of) planets in the solar system" would be false if no human minds existed.</i><br /><br />Neither true nor false, but indeterminate.Sean Robsvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27273191292887734402012-05-18T02:06:51.720-07:002012-05-18T02:06:51.720-07:00Sean,
You just agreed with me. In other words, th...Sean,<br /><br />You just agreed with me. In other words, the claim that "there are eight (or ten, or any number of) planets in the solar system" would be false if no human minds existed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79787656112410394182012-05-18T01:25:48.639-07:002012-05-18T01:25:48.639-07:00@ Anonymous
"Second, we all know what concep...@ Anonymous<br /><br /><i>"Second, we all know what conceptualism is. More importantly, we know that it's incoherent. For example, how do you account for stuff like numbers? You don't have the nominalist option of denying their existence entirely, so you're forced to say that they're only true as long as human minds imagine them."</i><br /><br />In their most abstract form, the integers are <a href="http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html" rel="nofollow"> generated ex nihilo by the mind contemplating emptiness. </a> There is no need to count any 'things' to generate the integers.<br /><br />The abstract integers are then mapped onto 'things' in a relatively arbitrary fashion. For example,depending upon whether you count Pluto and Ceres as planets, you can have between 8 and 10 planets in the solar systemSean Robsvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5863672926148103672012-05-18T01:07:29.060-07:002012-05-18T01:07:29.060-07:00@ Anonymous
"But an element is not merely the...@ Anonymous<br /><i>"But an element is not merely the number of atoms its comprised of it is also the way it manifests in reality. For example, gold has a yellowish color and does not rust, while iron (which has a different atomic number as you mention) is a metal that corrodes and rusts. Each element has a different essence and the fact that at the atomic level their most fundamental difference is one of composition of electrons does not change that one bit! "</i><br /><br />The behavior and properties of atoms of gold and iron (the only way they can be known) are solely and completely determined by the mass of their integer numbers of protons and neutrons and the reactivity (to photons and other electron shells) of their integer number of electrons. <br /><br />As I stated earlier, the definition of essentialism I'm working from is <b> "A philosophical theory ascribing ultimate reality to essences embodied in things. The essences are logically prior to, and metaphysically independent of, the existence of the individuals which instantiate them." </b><br /><br />But all the physical and chemical properties of the elements are derivative from, not prior to, their atomic composition. Therefore, the concept of an essence over and above their physico-chemical behavior performs no useful function , it gives no extra information or understanding, and is thus a candidate for Occams razor.Sean Robsvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23244531551017349512012-05-17T23:17:34.375-07:002012-05-17T23:17:34.375-07:00continued
So you can see they are not exactly th...continued <br /><br />So you can see they are not exactly the same. You've been conflating the two. Nonetheless, I think this was instructive. First, it reveals the source of our disagreement as an error in conflating two different thinkers on your part. You've been talking about Neoplatonism as if it were a homogenous movement, while I've been talking about Plotinus, the father of the movement. Second, it provides another opportunity to describe the process of salvation in <i><b>Plotinian</b></i> Neoplatonism, one that supports my arguement: the active soul is led by a drive "toward dissolution" and "must make the profound decision to renounce autonomous existence and re-merge with the source of all Being." We can also look to wikipedia for another version of this: "It is also a cornerstone of Neoplatonism to teach that all people return to the Source. The Source, Absolute, or One is what all things spring from . . . When people return to the Source, their energy returns to the One, Monad, or Source and is then recycled into the cosmos, where it can be broken up and then amalgamated into other things."<br /><br /><br />Now let me be clear about something--and you will likely continue to disagree with me on this point: I still would argue that given the metaphysical and cosmological structure behind Proclus' thought that there is still an unhealthy dialectical process there that is <i>implied</i>, though it is not explicit as it is in Plotinus, who readily admits to it. However, this is a completely different issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62470980155568544382012-05-17T23:16:45.169-07:002012-05-17T23:16:45.169-07:00Westcountryman,
No, not desperately rooting for q...Westcountryman,<br /><br />No, not desperately rooting for quotations. I pulled a couple out of a book and an internet encyclopedia to try and dispossess you of your errors. It was neither meant to be exhaustive nor final. Further, it is not much of my burden to prove anything at this point. I've offered quotations from a theologian well versed in Greek texts and now these sources. You are the one who has constantly accused me of misrepresentation, but have failed to back it up with much analysis. You claim that I have disregarded your analysis on unity, but I haven't; I addressed that in my last post. <br /><br />Fortunately, I now know why you disagree with me: you've been reading Proclus, not Plotinus. Are you not aware that they are different? Salvation and union with the One are different in each system, so citing a scholar on Proclus won't do. I was talking about Plotinus. The Fathers were talking about Plotinus. Hart was talking about Plotinus. Proclus is a late thinker who had little impact until after the 5th century. While he probably influenced Pseudo-Denys, he remained unknown in Western Christendom until the High Middle Ages (with the one exception of John Scotus Eriugena in the 9th century and his translation of Pseudo-Denys), when a summary of some of his work that had been passed off as an Aristotelian text under the name "Liber de Causis" came to the West in the 12th and 13th centuries from Muslim land. Until then, what Westerners knew of Neoplatonism came largely from Augustine's heavily redacted use of Plotinus. In the East, Pseudo-Denys was influential, but Proclus was not. He appeared in the last days of Neoplatonism. By then, most of the Christian councils that dealt with Neoplatonizing heresies had passed. The Father's had already adopted and redefined many of the fundamentals of platonic thinking. Proclus exerted little influence until the rebirth of Neoplatonism in Byzantium in the 15th century under Plethon and similar figures. It then made its way to Italy and the Renaissance.<br /><br />Proclus, then, does not belong in this conversation, as I have been talking about Neoplatonism in its Plotinian form--in the form the Fathers encountered it and in the form that most people talk about it.<br /><br />To illustrate these differences, we can take another look at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its entry on Neoplatonism under the section, "Being — Becoming — Being":<br /><br />"We found, in Plotinus, an explanation and expression of a cosmos that involved a gradual development from all but static unity toward eventual alienation — a moment at which the active soul must make the profound decision to renounce autonomous existence and re-merge with the source of all Being, or else remain forever in the darkness of forgetfulness and error. Salvation, for Plotinus, was relatively easy to accomplish, but never guaranteed. For Proclus, on the other hand, the arkhê or ‘ruling beginning’ of all Life is the ‘One-in-itself’ (to auto hen), or that which is responsible for the ordering of all existents, insofar as existence is, in the last analysis, the sovereign act or expression of this primordial unity or monad. . . .<br /><br />. . .The autonomous drive toward dissolution, which is so germane to the soul as such, is wiped away by Proclus, for his dialectic is impeccably clean. However, he does not account for the yearning for the infinite (as does Plotinus) and the consequent existential desire for productive power falls on its face before the supreme god of autonomous creation — which draws all existents into its primeval web of dissolution."<br /><br />continuedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39280721500310419722012-05-17T21:32:51.632-07:002012-05-17T21:32:51.632-07:00Sean,
You seem to be very confused. I don’t think...Sean,<br /><br />You seem to be very confused. I don’t think you have a good understanding of what essentialism is. Your basic premise is to show that change happens in the world and based on that try to undermine essentialism. But the problem with that is that essentialism is perfectly compatible with change. In fact, thinkers such as Aristotle and Plato used essentialism to explain just how change happens and rid the world of the extremeties of Permenides. Heracletus was just as wrong as Parmenides of course. Also, you should be aware that Plato’s thought was by Eastern thought so I am confused as to how you try to juxtapose Easter thought with Platonism.<br /><br />Anyways. Just to show how problematic your thinking is… You claim that existence may not be ontologically fundamental. But ontology is the very study of existence itself. What is one to make of such a remark? It’s just nonsense!<br /><br />You started by appealing to darwinism and were shown to be wrong. Not only are living things instantiations of forms but they are fundamentally teleological. Then you moved on to physics and chemistry and appealed to electrons and elements. Those too are forms. So once again you are wrong. A simple example is this: An electron is a particle with a negative spin. Therefore your claim is refuted. In regards to elements, yes, the atomic structure of an element is part of its essence (as in the number of electrons, neutrons and protons that comprise the atom). But an element is not merely the number of atoms its comprised of it is also the way it manifests in reality. For example, gold has a yellowish color and does not rust, while iron (which has a different atomic number as you mention) is a metal that corrodes and rusts. Each element has a different essence and the fact that at the atomic level their most fundamental difference is one of composition of electrons does not change that one bit! Nor is it simply the electron that is the difference but the unity of the entire atom itself. You are engaging in some crude reductionism here that is evidently incoherent. So in sum, different elements have different essences and changing from one to another due to radioactive decay does not in any way change that reality. <br /><br />If you want to be a Buddhist that’s great and all but it’s one thing to act according to your religion and a completely different animal to try and defend it philosophically. At best, Buddhism may not lend itse;f to logico-philosophical scrutiny so we’re talking about two completely different things. At worst it’s an absurd worldview. Now I don’t believe the later because I understand Buddhism functions under a different mode than most Western systems so I am not here to condemn your religion or anything. However, if I were to offer you an advice (to echo what Westcountryman said) stay away from charlatans like Dennett and dawkins. You have more in common with traditional western theology than with such materialistic nihilists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52306206246568603882012-05-17T20:48:51.910-07:002012-05-17T20:48:51.910-07:00Anon, I apologize for the personal shock, but I th...Anon, I apologize for the personal shock, but I thought I made it clear I was doing a sort of rhetorical reductio of, let us say, Buddhistic anthropology, which is what I meant by "there's no ego there to be insulted." If Buddhism is true, IOW, there aren't such things as "Buddhists" (unique instances of enduring personal substance) which can get insulted, or praised, or even identified. Apologies again for the rhetorical excess but 'I' hope 'you' see my point.Codgitatorhttp://ebougis.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39750658935120722122012-05-17T19:02:06.299-07:002012-05-17T19:02:06.299-07:00I should perhaps add that what Pauliina Remes appe...I should perhaps add that what Pauliina Remes appears to be referring to, and it is certainly the most obvious interpretation of her actual words, is the loss of particularity in the sense of the particular deriving its place and its end from the One. The individual human submitting utterly to the Divine.<br /><br /> This is a sense of Unity to God not foreign to the Christian and it is certainly not simply oblivion. It is the sense of submission to the Divine Will, that then properly grounds our particularity, that C.S Lewis refers to in the Screwtape Letters, for example.Westcountrymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604565103836807803noreply@blogger.com