I'm going to be getting picrel soon-ish, alongside Alcinous' Handbook of Platonism. Is it better than Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, and co.? I know that the Middle Platonists blended Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Neopythagoreanism into their philosophy, and they were widely divergent in their views, moreso than the Neoplatonists were.
They're all worthwhile.
>>25298688Some Middle Platonism is pretty recognizeable to what you'd see in Plotinus, but there's also a kind of thinness to some of it. Philo brings it up as it's relevant to his biblical interpretative project, Plutarch brings it up on a subject by subject basis in the Moralia. Alcinous and Apuleius are a bit more fleshed out, but it is usually at a kind of basic summary level, which is what the surviving works really are intending anyway. On the other hand, it's more reigned in than Proclus. I'm not sure I could say any of it's essential beyond some of Plutarch's essays, but if you haven't already read Plato, the summaries of Alcinous, Albinus, and Apuleius are decent. Look up Ryan Fowler's Imperial Plato, which collects Albinus, Maximus of Tyre, and Apuleius.
>>25298688do NOt fuck with neo-platonism because right or wrong, its good
>>25298757>>25298701What do you say to Christians who call Neoplatonism a Christian heresy, or say that they stole concepts from Christians? They say that Ammonius Saccas was a Christian, and that Iamblichus borrowed from his Christian teacher, Anatolius of Laodicea.
>>25298760It's the other way around, after reading through the Platonic dialogues you can't help but notice how Christian they feel (especially the treatment of Socrates as a Christ figure). There's even a fringe but not crackpot academic theory that the Tanakh was actually a near-contemporary of the Septuagint written under the influence of Plato's Laws and Republic
>>25298760Διὰ τί οἱ Χριστιανοὶ οὕτως εἰσίν;It's no different really when someone says "Platonism is Proto-Christianity"Just shrug your shoulders and tell them to read and start with the Greeks.
>>25298770Found the book I was referring to, it's Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible by Russel Gmirkin
>>25298688Plotinus was responding to Christians ang Gnostics and had to concede/respond to a few points
Just read plato. Simple as.>To read all kinds of expositions of the doctrines of the philosophers, or in general the history of philosophy, instead of reading their own original works is like letting somebody else chew our food. Would anyone read world history if we were free to watch with our own eyes the events of former times that interest us? Now in respect to the history of philosophy such an autopsy of the subject is actually available, namely in the original writings of the philosophers. At any rate, we can then limit ourselves, for the sake of brevity, to well-chosen principal chapters, the more so as they all abound in repetitions, which we can spare ourselves. In this way we will get to know the essence of their doctrines in authentic and unadulterated form, whereas from the half dozen histories of philosophy that now appear every year we merely receive what entered the head of a philosophy professor, and in the form in which it there appears at that. It goes without saying that the thoughts of a great mind are bound to shrink considerably in order to fit into the three-pound-brain of such a parasite of philosophy, out of which they are then to emerge again, clothed in the respective jargon of the day, accompanied by his precocious judgement.t. schopenhauer >ps: fuck proclus
>>25298770More generally, formative Platonic influence on both judaism and christianity is not remotely fringe in academic religious studies.
>>25298857Why fuck Proclus in particular?
>>25298688The distinction is a later invention. Plotinus himself was accused of being derivative and just recasting the thought of Numenius of Apamea (who was around mid-2nd century). Obviously, Plotinus has plenty of qualms with the Gnostics, but it's clear that the Gnostics (who are prior) have captured something of his cosmology already with the Monad and Barbelō emanation system (which they may have gotten from other Platonists of course, and various magical traditions, theurgy being a key element in many). Plotinus is a younger contemporary of Origen, and had the same master as him in Alexandria (Ammonius Saccas), and there are obvious similarities there too. Jewish and Christian Platonism was already a major facet of the Alexandrian Platonist scene, which was the epicenter.So much of the typology then stems from simply following the ordering of Saint Augustine's intellectual biography. He found the "neo" Platonists first, then became Christian. But in the actual intellectual history, the influence is bidirectional (this is consensus now).The reason to focus on the Neo-Platonists then is that you have far more complete sources. Also, Proclus is a genius.Anyhow, this all says interesting things about the reception of Aristotle, particularly since more of his works survived at that point. There has long been a sort of ideological motivation to read Aristotle as a sort of proto Empiricist cum modern "naturalist," eschewing readings by Aristotle's fellow antique Greeks, so as to make him more palatable to moderns. This is particularly true with Neo-Aristotleian ethics, which is more "neo" than "Aristotle," in how it tries to secure teleology, or something like it, while keeping to modern naturalist convictions the mechanistic causality, cosmic homogeneity, the rejection of analogy, etc. I tend to think this is more of a zombie Aristotle.This becomes relevant for all of philosophy because modern pedagogy and popular surveys have long only covered Plato and Aristotle in depth, then skipped to Descartes right away (*maybe* covering Augustine and Aquinas briefly on the way, but only on specific issues at a surface level). This means that if Plato and Aristotle can be reread as moderns, as rationalism versus empiricism, or as both being something like proto-liberals (just with defects and biases), you get an intellectual history that secured itself against anything outside Enlightenment presuppositions (except as half understood spooky or superstitious nonsense). So, in this way, Platonism remains oddly transgressive in a way the most radical post-modernism is not.
>>25299281Because he was the original Hegel. All arguments that Schopenhauer wrote against him, were aimed a fortiori at Hegel.>that insipid windbag Proclus>I have here referred to Proclus because in him this procedure becomes specially clear through the frank audacity with which he carries it out. But in Plato also we find some examples of this kind, though not so glaring; and in general the philosophical literature of all ages affords a multitude of instances of the same thing. That of our own time is rich in them. Consider, for example, the writings of the school of Schelling, and observe the constructions that are built up out of abstractions like finite and infinite—being, non-being, other being—activity, hindrance, product—determining, being determined, determinateness—limit, limiting, being limited—unity, plurality, multiplicity—identity, diversity, indifference—thinking, being, essence, &c. Not only does all that has been said above hold good of constructions out of such materials, but because an infinite amount can be thought through such wide abstractions, only very little indeed can be thought in them; they are empty husks. But thus the matter of the whole philosophising becomes astonishingly trifling and paltry, and hence arises that unutterable and excruciating tediousness which is characteristic of all such writings. If indeed I now chose to call to mind the way in which Hegel and his companions have abused such wide and empty abstractions, I should have to fear that both the reader and I myself would be ill; for the most nauseous tediousness hangs over the empty word-juggling of this loathsome philophaster.t. Schopenhauer
>>25298688No, it's just that awkward middle ground.
where to start with plato?
>>25299605My ad hoc canon:Euthyphro1 AlcibiadesTheagesGorgiasMenoApologyCritoPhaedoSymposiumPhaedrusRepublicTimaeusCritiasCratylusTheaetetusSophistStatesmanParmenidesProtagorasPhilebusEpinomis
>>25299723There are other canons as well. Albinus made the following canon:1 AlcibiadesPhaedoRepublicTimaeusIamblichus had his own as well:1 AlcibiadesGorgiasPhaedoCratylusTheaetetusSophistStatesmanPhaedrusSymposiumPhilebusHe also said the Timaeus and the Parmenides are perfect theological dialogues that encompass the entire platonic philosophy. They are more advanced, so read them after.
>>25298760aint got no problem with thatim rather pro-heretic, truth be told
>>25298760>>25298770>>25298772What are you people even smoking? It is well known and widely accepted in both RC and EO theology that Neoplatonist philosophy is downright a founding tenet of the Church.
>>25298688It was mid
>>25298770Other way around. Plato learned from the Egyptians who learned from the Hebrews. Same for Euclid and Pythagoras, etc. Greek wisdom came from earlier sources, particularly Solomon. Origen documents this.
>>25300214>Egyptians who learned from the HebrewsAbsolute nonsense ignorant of the sheer timescale through which Egypt existed. Jews were not the progenitors of anything, but incorrigible plagiarists.
>>25299723does the world have your canon in an ebook anywhere? maybe you can assemble it, write a few pages of introduction, publish it on amazon, get a bunch of people to pay a buck to have kindle assistive reader read it to them ?
>>25298770>Socrates as a Christ figuresocrates is a type of Christ, to have the Christ type is to be driven by charity and humility even to the point to meekly accept death for the sins of the people. socrates quoted [Acts 5:29] without having heard the Good News
>>25298857schopenhauer was an insufferable trustfundfag. if you take schopenhauer seriously i can assure you you have at best a midwit iq.
>>25300214In what work does Origen write this?>>25300256Good idea.
>>25300262Brother I don't know how to tell you this, he was put on trial for being part of an oligarchic occupation regime installed by Sparta. Nothing to do with "the sins of the people". Caiaphas is more his equal than Christ in the NT. Not trying to disparage his immense intellectual legacy which is indisputable, just stating historical facts.
>>25300440That's not actually true. His conviction may have had to do with his association with Critias, but the trial itself came four years after the overthrow of the thirty, and so was not the immediate cause.
>>25299723>>25299736thanks man
>>25300214t. jew
>>25300214Lmao this anon unironically took renaissance esotericists at face value
