Why is it so unusual in the history of thought for someone to be so thoroughly God-affirming yet so perfectly irreligious?After Plotinus I can think of very few, and all are relatively recent. Even the germans, or the french spiritualists (think Ravaisson, Bergson) seem to remain open to religiosity on principle. Notably, Eric Perl (neoplatonism scholar, former Roman Catholic) has apostasized in recent years, and theologian David Bentley Hart (though for some mysterious reason he still insists on calling himself a christian) does not seem terribly convinced about things like exclusivism or the real efficacy of religious rituals. But by and large, people who are willing to admit that the world depends on a principle (call it what you want, really) tend to be open to or convinced of the notion that said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them. This is obviously a very counterintuitive idea, and actually extremely hard to reconcile with what is commonly called "classical theism". It's not just that there is a gap between say, the quinque viae and religion, it's that there is an apparent (and I would say, probably actual) contradiction between the latter and any framework in which the former have any meaning.So what gives? My bet is that historically most people working/writing in this field were initially religious and picked it up as apologetics. But they tended to surreptitiously equate theism and religion, metaphysics with legalism, ethics with casuistry. This, is turn, is off-putting to people who might otherwise have been interested in the topic, and, having been convinced that theology was essentially a part of religion, discard it altogether.(Of course I'm not counting the deist thing as that has little to do with actual metaphysics/theology.)
I guess east asian civilizations as a whole tend to not care too much. iirc, one of the core tenets of chan (or son, or zen) or some lineage thereof was precisely that one should free oneself of belief in "the real efficacy of religious rituals".I'm no expert though. Maybe it has to do with the fact that, unlike abrahamic religions, east asian religions don't "personify" the principle.
>>24840808I'd say William James had it figured out years ago. Religion is a personal thing and if helps you, thats a good thing.
So I am guessing you never read Plotinus. If you actually did and this is your takeaway, I am afraid you are NGMI.
Source on Eric Perl?
>>24840808Can you say more about what you mean when you say "irreligious"? Do you mean in terms of practice or of belief?
>>24840808>said principle could manifest or reveal itself in another special, priviledged way, that it could somehow act no longer as the principle, but as a being among beings, intervening among them and upon them.The principle of gravity didn't give Newton special privilege but it did reveal itself to him alone or at least only to the few men who dedicated themselves to it.The mythicization of men like that is also not isolated to religion.The Roman Christian traditions tend to avoid any talk about Jesus as a man since that was a source of major schisms and violence but the Bible always talks about Christ as a man. He had a similar childhood to John the Baptist, engrossed in religious scholarship and the prophecy of the messiah.So let's say the man who from childhood strived to embody the perfect warrior king, the son of basically a wargod found that embodying something like the principle of love and creation would have longer lasting impact and fulfil all the laws and prophecies he was engrossed in.By spreading his spirit across the world he became like a new sun leading to global peace and prosperity never dreamed of.Did the man embody something "divine" or was he just a social engineer or whatever? Seems like just a matter of perspective, in ancient language he was clearly divine, in modern empirical language he was some guy who did a lot of good stuff.
>>24840808How in the heck is Plotinus irreligious?
>>24842102>>24840969When does he say anything that suggest he held to any particular belief? He uses names of gods in many passages of the enneads but this is obviously a product of his culture and a literary device. There is nothing in his writings that indicates he had any belief in the literal truth of any religion, be it greek, egyptian, or other.That and Porphyry flat out says that he wasn't a religious sort of person.I think anyone who is sort of conversant in neoplatonism knows that he is generally portrayed as an non-religious theologian, with no interest in rituals, theurgy and the like (as opposed to say Proclus), and for good reason.Apart from the famous remark by Olympiodorus to this effect, one can also look to 20th century french neoplatonists (Hadot, for instance)
>>24842513>When does he say anything that suggest he held to any particular belief? He uses names of gods in many passages of the enneads but this is obviously a product of his culture and a literary device.How are you settling on the latter to reach the former? I'm aware that he sometimes says the One is like a god while quickly qualifying to say they're not the same, and I agree that he's distinct from his successors re: theurgy, but I think a fuller discussion of what you mean by "religious" and "irreligious" might be necessary
>>24841696There was a thread on twitter last year (iirc) where the author's endeavoured to "debunk" Perl's reasons for leaving catholicism behind. Could not find Perl's statement though.>>24841795I would say that the defining feature of religiosity is holding dear the notion that the principle could or did intervene discretely and intra-historically. The flip side of this is that certain beings, things, events, enjoy a "relationship" to the principle that differs in kind from that of other things. All in all, it seems to rest upon the assumption that there are "dealings" between principle and world, much like there are dealings between things (although the more sophisticated species of religion typically tries to maintain that the former are sui generis) or, better yet, that there is (or need be) a "supernatural order" parallel to the world yet higher, and demanding to be obeyed or respected.This is commonly accompanied by belief in the real efficacy (as regards the dealings between creation and creator) of performing certain rituals or following certain rules. Now some people behave as if this were a logical conclusion of there being a principle or "it" being a principle at all: "If God can create the world, then why wouldn't he be able to do this or that". This is just a category mistake, of course (or "apologistic" dishonesty).Some others, while not purporting to bridge the gap in so expedient a manner, nonetheless embrace religion.I don't think Plotinus falls into either category.
>>24842566To be fair he does more than that. His writings are ripe with religious imagery from Egypt and Greece. He calls his "hypostases" (an unfortunate term) by the names of greek gods. But all in all, it is quite evident both from his writings and what is known of his life that he had little interest either in literal adhesion to a religion, or in ritual practice. Now some beliefs of his might have a tougher time evading the charge, though (for instance, his belief in some sort of retributive justice at metempsychosis), but I'd say those are either things that can be explained otherwise, or byproducts of his culture, mentioned in passing, to which he wasn't necessarily married.
>>24840808>Why is it so unusual in the history of thought for someone to be so thoroughly God-affirming yet so perfectly irreligious?Have you considered that it might be because claiming to have knowledge of muh higher spheres without special revelation is utterly retarded?
>>24842513>no interest in rituals, theurgy and the like (as opposed to say Proclus), and for good reasonThere are a whole bunch of examples in the Enneads and Life of Plotinus that demonstrate Plotinus was very well versed in theurgy, magic, divination and ritual. His tone throughout the whole text is also very pious. It's utterly absurd to think of him as a 'irreligious person'. He affirmed the existence of a supreme god, very many lesser deities and countless angelic beings. He also affirmed a cosmic hierarchy and the value of piety, purity and union with the divine. Whether he attended basic temple rites is quite irrelevant: he was de facto a super-monk, he wasn't desperate for the once a week sunday sermon.What you are thinking of is the overexaggerated claim that Plotinus was a rationalist and took a stand against superstition. This is a misreading of what he is actually saying. For example, his critique of astrological divination is not a critique of divination as a whole, but only of the way divination was practiced in his time. Incidentally, in order to do this it seems he also possessed intimate knowledge of astrological divination. And this is something very few people did. So he was clearly very well versed in spiritual matters.
only trannies pretend being religious (aka ritualistic) is le bad and makes you miss the forest for the trees.
>>24843314Exact opposite. I mean I doubt one can call the divine a sphere at all (or a realm, or anything of that sort).But theology can and should be done (exclusively so) apart from religion.In fact, it would have to be this sort of theology that serves as the criteria for revelation anyway.
>>24843366>There are a whole bunch of examples in the Enneads and Life of Plotinus that demonstrate Plotinus was very well versed in theurgy, magic, divination and ritual.That he knew about it (or even knew a lot about it) doesn't mean much. I know a lot about catholicism, I nonetheless think it's a joke.>He affirmed the existence of a supreme god>the value of piety, purity and union with the divineThis isn't inherently religious>very many lesser deities and countless angelic beings.I can be a plotinian or an aristotelian and believe in unicorns. That's folk belief, not religion. His thought isn't directly linked to this and he doesn't try to make it linked to this. Incidentally, he probably wouldn't have batted an eye if you told him none of this is *literally* true.>What you are thinking of is the overexaggerated claim that Plotinus was a rationalistNo, that would be anachronistic, and anyway in modern parlance Plotinus would be an intellectualist (or, in 19th century terms, an intuitionist, or a spiritualist, or what have you).>and took a stand against superstition. I mean, who doesn't? Superstition is an inherently derogatory term. As such, nobody defends superstition qua superstition, not intellectually at least. But here's what I'm saying: there is nothing is Plotinus *as a thinker* that suggests he took [what we would now call] the superstitious element of his worldview to be integral, central, necessary, or even literal. One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world. Whether there is a tension here is none of my concern, to be honest
>>24844976>That he knew about it (or even knew a lot about it) doesn't mean much. I know a lot about catholicism, I nonetheless think it's a joke.You probably don't know a lot about Catholicism. You are also a bored NEET living in the digital age. In order to learn astrology in the ancient world you would have to go study under masters belonging to specific lineages who would charge a whole bunch of money and even then may choose not to instruct you if they don't feel like it. The fact that Plotinus knows that much about so many things actually already makes him a qualified expert in them, and demonstrates a strong interest (given the conditions of the time). Moreover these are technical disciplines quite different from learning about and subscribing to doctrinal positions. >This isn't inherently religious"Religion" is itself an anachronistic term when discussing the ancient world, the relevant categories would be devoutness and piety. If you have these, it would be more accurate to say that you are beyond religious rather than non-religious, especially if by 'religion' we understand a social mass organisation which seems to be what you take it to mean. >I can be a plotinian or an aristotelian and believe in unicorns. That's folk belief, not religion. His thought isn't directly linked to this and he doesn't try to make it linked to this. Incidentally, he probably wouldn't have batted an eye if you told him none of this is *literally* true.That is a deranged opinion.>I mean, who doesn't? Superstition is an inherently derogatory term.I agree but I am pretty sure you get my point.>One can perfectly believe in mythical entities and occult practices, and merely consider them a mysterious part of the sublunar world. Insofar as Plotinus' major concern was henosis we can say that anything and everything in the generated cosmos was a curious but irrelevant part of creation. But to affirm this absolutely would be weird and also unfair towards Plotinus.>Whether there is a tension here is none of my concern, to be honestThat's not the problem, the problem is that you are completely incorrect. Maybe you are incorrect because you have failed at reading the text, or maybe it's because you are using very particular and impractical definitions for key terms. But your assertion is simply incorrect.
>>24846278Weird to just assume someone is a NEET, grow up and touch grass
