How can a multitude arise out of unity if that unity is unity unqualified? In other words, there is nothing else there but unity, what magic or copium allows 'nothing else but unity' to spontaneously produce multiple things? It's ironic they say necessary codependence is impossible because eternal regression seems like a stretch, when their alternative of emanation works 'just because.'
This sort of speak to me is the continental equivalence to analytic philosophy's if p q then r then q p nonsense.Makes philosophy look like a game where you just create the most arbitrary words that all sort of fit together in a particular way to create a problem out of nothing, which is ironic considering that the "you cant create something out of nothing" phrase is one of the premier examples of using or creating language to create problems that have nothing to do with reality.Because it proves that nothing is ever truly nothing, rather than we are evolved in a particular way to understand certain things as "nothing" (one of my favourite examples is, think of an empty room, there's nothing in there right? but no theres actually a multitude of interacting atoms and matter, etc etc. its just "nothing" because its nothing directly relevant to us) Let alone that "nothing" could even be understood in a way that would preclude it from eventually becoming something
>>24736345Unironically good question Anon; the emergence of everything from a formless unity (Ein Sof) is understood in the Kabbalah from the contraction/fragmentation of this unity into varios subjectives pov's, this event is known as tzimtzum. Kabbalah is esentially cristian neoplatonism, so you can derive tradition from that I guess. Emergence by definition is very gestaltic, more than just the sum of it's parts or the way they organize, however in this case there isn't "multiple things" as you say, but only one thing divided in itself, like a broken mirror with a lot of cracks/reflections but still one mirror. That's the way I see it at least
>>24736354So, something can come from something else, as long as it's irrelevant to us, and that's how a multitude can come from unity unqualified. Thanks
>>24736345this philosophy is actually horrifying. he says in this book that every soul in existence exists on a fixed period and that it repeats the exact same cycle of descent and ascent eternally. everything that happens is absolutely determined and because the each thing in the chain of being by necessity must produce everything it is capable of producing there is nothing that is possible that doesn't happen. it's just like Spinoza's nightmare philosophy where "God" has to produce everything possible in his power. I lay awake and dream of the horrors that according to these philosophies must be happening merely because they are possible.
>>24736358What makes me hesitate to accept this solution is that "fragmentation" is just another way to say "one thing becomes many things." So, if we say that the one can become many by fragmenting, we are really saying that the one can become many by becoming many. But that doesn't actually answer the question. That these many things are only many parts of the same whole doesn't help, because unity unqualified (or oneness unqualified) doesn't admit of many parts, by virtue of their being many.
>>24736379Exactly. "Unity unqualified" can't become two; so it tricks itself into subjectiveness by watching itself and pretending it's someone else, since "Unity unqualified" also can't have a point of view (since nothing exist outside of it, and in this case nothing really signifies ausence of existence and not just empty space filled with atoms like the other anon said). So it fragmentates itself into different views of itself that look at itself, essentially being still one unity (Like the infinity between 0 and 1 being still just one, that's zeno's paradox. In this case it doesn't apply because Unity Unqualified is above physical laws, and in particular physical space/areas). It like folding a paper in two and pretending it's two different paper; for this trick to work, "Unity Unqualified" must lose the sum of it knowledge and instead distribute a bit of it to every "subjetive perspective" generated. This whole process is actually the antithesis of emergence, as it represents distributing something greater than the sum of it parts into various other parts, however this is fake and the parts are still one but folded into layers. NGE uses this concept of the Kabbalah to represent AT Fields, when this "field (subjective pov)" is lost to the Unity, the individual is absorved into the larger individual because it realizes it never was two but only one.
>>24736405If unity unqualified has the power of "watching" or "pretending," then it has parts. If it has parts, then it is not unity unqualified, it is something that participates both unity and multiplicity (by being a whole with parts).
>>24736345>emanation works 'just because.'literally every metaphysics forces you to accept that something works 'just because.' this problem is inherent to metaphysics, not just neoplatonism.
>>24736417It's not only a leap of faith, it's illogical. If unity unqualified is absent of any distinctions, and the possession of a mechanism that allows for the emanation of a multitude necessitates a distinction between unity unqualified and its possession of this mechanism, then unity unqualified cannot possess this mechanism. If it can't possess this mechanism, then it can't emanate a multitude.
>>24736417>>24736431And before you say we should give up on logical consistency, know that this would negate all the logic that builds Neoplatonism as well.
>>247363452 comes from 1 anon, its not that hard.
>>24736345>how can a multitude arise out of unity if that unity is unity unqualified?You're taking the One as an abstraction that multiplicity then "comes out" of, like water from a spring. It's sensuous thinking. The One and everything that we think of as emerging from the One, all the way down to non-being, is one integrated system. Not only could multiplicity not 'come out' of the One in the way you're thinking, the One would not even exist, it would be completely indeterminate nothing. The basic Platonic line of thought is not 'oh bro look at these multiplex things, there must be some super-unified thing that they come from,' but 'multiplex things can only exist in unity and unity itself only exists as expressing itself in multiplicity.' This is arguably what Plato is trying to get at in the Parmenides. But this is speculative thought and our language and sentence structure is not good at expressing it - Hegel talks a lot about this. But for instance if a Platonist said "this triangular looking shape depends on the Form of the Triangle" it wouldn't be an objection to say, "how could the Form become the shape?" because this isn't what the Platonist is saying. Even a polemical opponent of the Forms like Aristotle does not use this argument because he knows it misses the mark.
>>24736354> which is ironic considering that the "you cant create something out of nothing" phrase is one of the premier examples of using or creating language to create problems that have nothing to do with reality.Yes. There's an entire section of the Science of Logic that explains this very point. But he's one of the 'continentals' that you reject.>Because it proves that nothing is ever truly nothing, rather than we are evolved in a particular way to understand certain things as "nothing" (one of my favourite examples is, think of an empty room, there's nothing in there right? but no theres actually a multitude of interacting atoms and matter, etc etcYou weren't thinking of nothing then. If you can't raise yourself above sensible things you will never into philosophy desu
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htmCheck out remark 3, Hegel quotes from Jacobi making the exact same point that you are making OP and answers it.
read plotinus
>>24736431>the possession of a mechanism...Characteristic language of the bare understanding. Leave mechanisms to mechanics and natural scientists.
>>24736431And what if the unity contains in itself a relation of unity and multiplicity? How would that affect your problem?
>>24737277Then substitute "ability" for "mechanism," the problem remains the same.
>>24737313If unity unqualified contains two parts, one unity and the other multiplicity, then it is not unity itself, rather something else that participates both unity and multiplicity - in the same way a regular object has parts and constitutes a whole.
>>24737264What is his argument?
gonna need a solid lecture on neoplatonism, bros. anybody got any links?
>>24737520For the necessity of the One? The same as Proclus. For the One's being many? There are a couple of ways he approaches this. Teleologically, the ultimate is an end and an end is related to something else. Or by power, being as such goes out of itself (you see this even in sensible things, everything expresses itself in some way and interacts with the environment), so the ultimate principle could not be a static monad. Being is not some determinate 'thing' but most people itt are still thinking this way which will permanently filter them from pretty much all philosophy.
>>24736345It's people to stupid to understand Plato making their own headcanon.
The One is the Unmoved Mover of Thought Thinking Itself, Being dialectically creates Nothing which it then processually overflows via Emanation downward and Participation upward.
>>24736431Look up incommensurabiliry.
>>24736345You are not god and you don’t get to make up fake definitions for words so that your argument isn’t falsifiable.
>>24736345>eternal regressionIt's actually eternal *progression* ;^)
