Towards the start of your video you talk about the atom, the atom being the smallest thing and is built up of nothing. I believe you're wrong, the atom is not the smallest possible thing to date, a 'quark' is, even so, a quark must be able to be split, another thing to build that up, and then again something to build that up, never-ending.
@alZiiHardstylez: I wasn't talking about the modern, scientific, concept of atom. I was talking about the classic philosophical concept, in a merely speculative or hipothetical manner.
In the classic concept, an atom is by definition, even by ethimology, that which has no parts.
Besides, you may want to check out this: "If we look in the zoo for the smallest subatomic particle, we might find that the quark is a likely candidate. Even smaller is the string, which, though not a particle, may be the fundamental building block of matter." It's from wikianswers.
@BlackLaval The Atom was an ancient metaphysical concept. Later on in the development of modern science, when a certain incredibly microscopic body of matter was discovered, they named it the Atom, despite the fact that it did not fit the definition of what an Atom was. Scientists have a tendency of hijacking names to label things that do not fit the name's description (like the universe).
@alZiiHardstylez I think the atom of the philosophers is not the ''atom'' of the physicians .... The atom that the philosophers meant was the smallest part of something that cannt be divided .... So it's not the modern atom.. maybe it's the string or something else ...
Plotinus would say that there can be no reason with God because our intellect is a manifestation of the Divine Mind (the Intelectual Principle / second Triad of the Divine).
Yes, "Logos" is often translated as "Word", but it can also mean "intellect".
It is often taken to represent Christ. Thus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, it corresponds with the 2nd Triad of Plotinus's One - which is the Divine Mind / Intellectual Principle.
I heard an old hymn th other day and it brought me back to thinking of this again. The first line was "Come Holy Ghost, Creator come", and this ties in with the physical world/universe emanating from the 3rd Traid (the All-Soul).
What good resources would you recommend for reading more on Neoplatonism? I hear Proclus is good. I have Part 1 and 5 of Plotinus' Enneads in my ancient philosophy book.
Thank you. Yes, Proclus would also be a good source. It's worthwhile to remember that each philosopher developed and added to it, so that Plotinus likely added his own thoughts to his teacher, Ammonius' thoughts. Similarly with Proclus,
I'm not an authority on Neo-Platonism by any stretch. I have the full Enneads but I haven't read it right through. My edition does have a very good commentary by a Jesuit scholar though, which is very insightful. I'm more of a Platonist myself though.
The early Church Fathers drew quite a bit from Plato (before Aristotle came into vogue), but their knowledge came by way of Neo-Platonism. I think the idea of the Trinity certainly shows Neo-Platonic influence, as we have discussed.
The three triads seem to broadly correspond to the three aspects of the Trinity.
However, we should also guard against equating them too much. Plotinus' God is very different from the Christian God as well .
The Christian God is a personal God who interacts with his Creation. The Plotinic One is aloof and has no interest or concern with the physical realm, beyond that it is the creative Act of the Third Triad. But even the Third Triad is always contemplating the Intellect Principle, and so looking upwards in the process of emanations, rather than lookingbelow and interacting with us.
my dad raised me to be an atheist but i believe in god. his argument for why god doesn't exist is that humans choose through reason, and because we choose, there is no cause for our choices but ourselves. we create our own causes. or something like that hehe. i don't know if i can wrap my brain around what my dad believes. oh well. great video!
With respect, your father's argument is a non sequitur. Just because we make our own choices doesn't preclude the existence of a God.
The conclusion of this argument doesn't follow from the premise. It says nothing of the origin of the universe, us, our consciousness or our free will. Aristotle makes a good case for existence of a God (or Prime Mover as he refers to the entity).
i don't believe in what my dad believes, i was relating what i was raised with. that's why i said "i don't know if i can wrap my brain around what my dad believes." if fact, i probably believe what you believe.
Sorry Ricky, I may have come across as if I thought this was your belief. I know that's not what you said, I was just critiquing your father's statement.
In fact, I had a similar background to you. My father is also an atheist and I subscribed to it myself for many years, but I eventually rejected that position myself as being fundamenally unsound.
BlackLaval, I don't think you are playing God's advocate, but actually believe these ideas.
Parmenides' Being is imaginary, which is contradicted by having the parts described, "no parts, no divisions, etc."
The way *you* describe Plotinus' absolute indivisible sounds similar to Lao Tzu's "Tao" being the faceless and nameless source of all things. However, Plotinus didn't mean that.
.... Plotinus' views are part of the ancient pagan culture where ideals are higher than animal lusts, and turned into godlike, more real, objects.
As part of that zeitgeist, he referred to a perfect absolute as the actual source for all existence, with the animal, base nature being the lowest emanation. It was a way of worshipping philosophical precepts.
That is, it's a finite God disguised as an absolute. It is clearly separate from other parts, or enamations, see?
Secondly, you argue I mischaracterize Plotinus ideas. Umh, I'm actually paraphrasing from book 7 of the 6th Ennead. And your remarks don't really contradict my characterizaton of Plotinus thought, of course there's a tendency of denying the body and material reality in Plotinus, but it's not at ALL a part of ancient pagan culture, rather a part of Platonic reaction against down to earth Paganism.
And of course Plotinus's God is separate from its emanations, but that doesn't mean it has parts in itself.
So I don't think you're really disproving this monstrous God, in my view the weak point on Plotinus reasoning is in his theory of emanations, how can that timeless, formless thing be the origin of all the finite and low things in Nature, his metaphors are meaningless, the reflection, but a reflection needs light,... (cont.)
(cont.) he also says the One emanates reality without altering itself as the Sun emantes light without diminishing himself, but we now know the Sun is actually in perpetual 'self-sacrifice' in order to bring forth all that energy.
So that Faceless God may well be (and how did Plotinus knew it would be another weak point), but being inmutable and having no parts no beginning no nothing, it has nothing to do with base, material beings
BL, the solar star in our system isn't causing itself. It has causes beyond itself, such as other matter in space that contributes to the direction or force of its rays or winds.
Well, first of all, there's no reason for you to believe I'm lying, and I find it kind of mean you believing so, huh, >:(.
I REALLY against these ideas I'm exposing, I loathe Augustine's theory (theories actually) of evil, but I find the best disproof of them is Fredegis of Tours letter 'On Nothingness and Darkness.'
And I despise all Plotinus theology, trying you attack early Christianity he gave the philospphical instruments to neurortics like Augustine to turn Jesus teachings into (cont.)
I totally agree with your remark that "there never was a beginning," but I would view it in an spiritual perspective as a (truly Pagan) faith in the Eternity of Nature, as expressed in this song /watch?v=eSvJgRSiJSM
And I'm totally into the spirit of your series, I think that God needs to be disproved and specially save children from that way of thinking. That is an Anti-God.
The vid was basically a glorification of sex. It is a pretty weak form of understanding Nature, when there are so many more intelligent ways of expressing that understanding.
I mean, everything expresses Nature's eternity. But I don't have to go around flapping my arms pretending to be a bird.
BL, that's true. I can remember a friend expressing his infinite nature on a busy beach promenade. It was full of people walking in straight lines, with everyone virtually identical. He decided to wander back and forward wherever his whim took him, twirling in circles, like a jellyfish.
It was interesting, because it didn't have any "ego-piglet" theatricality to it. He didn't act "liberated", like Nijinsky or other pompous arty types.
Towards the start of your video you talk about the atom, the atom being the smallest thing and is built up of nothing. I believe you're wrong, the atom is not the smallest possible thing to date, a 'quark' is, even so, a quark must be able to be split, another thing to build that up, and then again something to build that up, never-ending.
alZiiHardstylez 1 year ago
@alZiiHardstylez: I wasn't talking about the modern, scientific, concept of atom. I was talking about the classic philosophical concept, in a merely speculative or hipothetical manner.
In the classic concept, an atom is by definition, even by ethimology, that which has no parts.
BlackLaval 1 year ago
@BlackLaval Oh, so you are telling us about the idea of Plotinus's God?
My bad, XD.
alZiiHardstylez 1 year ago
@alZiiHardstylez Well... yeah, I was talking about that.
Besides, you may want to check out this: "If we look in the zoo for the smallest subatomic particle, we might find that the quark is a likely candidate. Even smaller is the string, which, though not a particle, may be the fundamental building block of matter." It's from wikianswers.
BlackLaval 1 year ago
@BlackLaval The Atom was an ancient metaphysical concept. Later on in the development of modern science, when a certain incredibly microscopic body of matter was discovered, they named it the Atom, despite the fact that it did not fit the definition of what an Atom was. Scientists have a tendency of hijacking names to label things that do not fit the name's description (like the universe).
Zephon9 1 year ago
@alZiiHardstylez I think the atom of the philosophers is not the ''atom'' of the physicians .... The atom that the philosophers meant was the smallest part of something that cannt be divided .... So it's not the modern atom.. maybe it's the string or something else ...
megasayajinsongoku99 7 months ago
Sounds very Leibnizian.
JaffarDS 1 year ago
Edit-> "no reason WITHOUT God"
Cathain78 2 years ago
2nd part-
Plotinus would say that there can be no reason with God because our intellect is a manifestation of the Divine Mind (the Intelectual Principle / second Triad of the Divine).
Cathain78 2 years ago
Interesting.
I would agree. (In the beginning was The Word (Logos)) John 1:1
JaffarDS 2 years ago
Yes, "Logos" is often translated as "Word", but it can also mean "intellect".
It is often taken to represent Christ. Thus as the 2nd person of the Trinity, it corresponds with the 2nd Triad of Plotinus's One - which is the Divine Mind / Intellectual Principle.
I heard an old hymn th other day and it brought me back to thinking of this again. The first line was "Come Holy Ghost, Creator come", and this ties in with the physical world/universe emanating from the 3rd Traid (the All-Soul).
Cathain78 2 years ago
That's incredibly interesting.
What good resources would you recommend for reading more on Neoplatonism? I hear Proclus is good. I have Part 1 and 5 of Plotinus' Enneads in my ancient philosophy book.
JaffarDS 2 years ago
Thank you. Yes, Proclus would also be a good source. It's worthwhile to remember that each philosopher developed and added to it, so that Plotinus likely added his own thoughts to his teacher, Ammonius' thoughts. Similarly with Proclus,
I'm not an authority on Neo-Platonism by any stretch. I have the full Enneads but I haven't read it right through. My edition does have a very good commentary by a Jesuit scholar though, which is very insightful. I'm more of a Platonist myself though.
Cathain78 2 years ago
Comment removed
Roelandvinken 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cathain78 1 year ago
@Roelandvinken
No, Dean Inge was an Anglican wasn't he?
The Jesuit scholar was Paul Henry S.J.
Cathain78 1 year ago
Comment removed
Roelandvinken 1 year ago
The early Church Fathers drew quite a bit from Plato (before Aristotle came into vogue), but their knowledge came by way of Neo-Platonism. I think the idea of the Trinity certainly shows Neo-Platonic influence, as we have discussed.
The three triads seem to broadly correspond to the three aspects of the Trinity.
However, we should also guard against equating them too much. Plotinus' God is very different from the Christian God as well .
Cathain78 2 years ago
The Christian God is a personal God who interacts with his Creation. The Plotinic One is aloof and has no interest or concern with the physical realm, beyond that it is the creative Act of the Third Triad. But even the Third Triad is always contemplating the Intellect Principle, and so looking upwards in the process of emanations, rather than lookingbelow and interacting with us.
Cathain78 2 years ago
Comment removed
Roelandvinken 2 years ago
my dad raised me to be an atheist but i believe in god. his argument for why god doesn't exist is that humans choose through reason, and because we choose, there is no cause for our choices but ourselves. we create our own causes. or something like that hehe. i don't know if i can wrap my brain around what my dad believes. oh well. great video!
RickyShoreSings 2 years ago
With respect, your father's argument is a non sequitur. Just because we make our own choices doesn't preclude the existence of a God.
The conclusion of this argument doesn't follow from the premise. It says nothing of the origin of the universe, us, our consciousness or our free will. Aristotle makes a good case for existence of a God (or Prime Mover as he refers to the entity).
Cathain78 2 years ago
i don't believe in what my dad believes, i was relating what i was raised with. that's why i said "i don't know if i can wrap my brain around what my dad believes." if fact, i probably believe what you believe.
RickyShoreSings 2 years ago
Sorry Ricky, I may have come across as if I thought this was your belief. I know that's not what you said, I was just critiquing your father's statement.
In fact, I had a similar background to you. My father is also an atheist and I subscribed to it myself for many years, but I eventually rejected that position myself as being fundamenally unsound.
Here's to independent thinking :-)
Cathain78 2 years ago
KJ, Please check out the quote I've added to the video description. Is it that different from what I said in this video?
BlackLaval 2 years ago
BL, I thought it was mostly identical.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
BlackLaval, I don't think you are playing God's advocate, but actually believe these ideas.
Parmenides' Being is imaginary, which is contradicted by having the parts described, "no parts, no divisions, etc."
The way *you* describe Plotinus' absolute indivisible sounds similar to Lao Tzu's "Tao" being the faceless and nameless source of all things. However, Plotinus didn't mean that.
(cont'd)
KellyJones00 2 years ago
.... Plotinus' views are part of the ancient pagan culture where ideals are higher than animal lusts, and turned into godlike, more real, objects.
As part of that zeitgeist, he referred to a perfect absolute as the actual source for all existence, with the animal, base nature being the lowest emanation. It was a way of worshipping philosophical precepts.
That is, it's a finite God disguised as an absolute. It is clearly separate from other parts, or enamations, see?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Secondly, you argue I mischaracterize Plotinus ideas. Umh, I'm actually paraphrasing from book 7 of the 6th Ennead. And your remarks don't really contradict my characterizaton of Plotinus thought, of course there's a tendency of denying the body and material reality in Plotinus, but it's not at ALL a part of ancient pagan culture, rather a part of Platonic reaction against down to earth Paganism.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
BL, if there is just one error in 10 statements, that means the entire thing is wrong.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
And of course Plotinus's God is separate from its emanations, but that doesn't mean it has parts in itself.
So I don't think you're really disproving this monstrous God, in my view the weak point on Plotinus reasoning is in his theory of emanations, how can that timeless, formless thing be the origin of all the finite and low things in Nature, his metaphors are meaningless, the reflection, but a reflection needs light,... (cont.)
BlackLaval 2 years ago
(cont.) he also says the One emanates reality without altering itself as the Sun emantes light without diminishing himself, but we now know the Sun is actually in perpetual 'self-sacrifice' in order to bring forth all that energy.
So that Faceless God may well be (and how did Plotinus knew it would be another weak point), but being inmutable and having no parts no beginning no nothing, it has nothing to do with base, material beings
BlackLaval 2 years ago
BL, the solar star in our system isn't causing itself. It has causes beyond itself, such as other matter in space that contributes to the direction or force of its rays or winds.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
BL, no one thing is the cause of another thing. You can figure this out by being able to divide mentally any particular thing.
Plotinus' God was definitely a finite thing. It wasn't everything.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Well, first of all, there's no reason for you to believe I'm lying, and I find it kind of mean you believing so, huh, >:(.
I REALLY against these ideas I'm exposing, I loathe Augustine's theory (theories actually) of evil, but I find the best disproof of them is Fredegis of Tours letter 'On Nothingness and Darkness.'
And I despise all Plotinus theology, trying you attack early Christianity he gave the philospphical instruments to neurortics like Augustine to turn Jesus teachings into (cont.)
BlackLaval 2 years ago
(cont.) into a doctrine of resentment.
I totally agree with your remark that "there never was a beginning," but I would view it in an spiritual perspective as a (truly Pagan) faith in the Eternity of Nature, as expressed in this song /watch?v=eSvJgRSiJSM
And I'm totally into the spirit of your series, I think that God needs to be disproved and specially save children from that way of thinking. That is an Anti-God.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
BL, I hear you.
The vid was basically a glorification of sex. It is a pretty weak form of understanding Nature, when there are so many more intelligent ways of expressing that understanding.
I mean, everything expresses Nature's eternity. But I don't have to go around flapping my arms pretending to be a bird.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
LOL, yeah I guess it's a matter of taste, or shamelesness (and I don't mean for the sex thing but for the flapping arms thing)
BlackLaval 2 years ago
BL, that's true. I can remember a friend expressing his infinite nature on a busy beach promenade. It was full of people walking in straight lines, with everyone virtually identical. He decided to wander back and forward wherever his whim took him, twirling in circles, like a jellyfish.
It was interesting, because it didn't have any "ego-piglet" theatricality to it. He didn't act "liberated", like Nijinsky or other pompous arty types.
KellyJones00 2 years ago