/lit/ - Literature

Keep on Keepin on

>>15563652
How did the Demiurge even become a meme?
It seems to me that in most discussions, people can't even decide what branch of Gnosticism they specifically subscribe to, if any. There's just the vague idea of the Demiurge being an (incompetent for some, evil for others) entity that keeps us "trapped" in the material realm, and that transcendence, achieved through the accumulation of valuable knowledge and experience (gnosis), leads to reuniting with the Pleroma.
In essence, the basic understanding people have of Gnosticism is that this world is a prison that should be escaped. But what is it that made that idea so popular lately? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gnosticism has been relatively unimportant historically, and opposed by pretty much everyone from Christians to Neoplatonists, so why the recent spike in interest?

Also, save for those aforementioned core tenants, nobody seems to really give a shit about the rest, be it Christ's place in all this, the nature of the less talked-about concepts and ideas in Gnostic cosmogony, or even the practical aspects of attaining gnosis.
I'm under the impression that a lot of the memes about Gnosticism aren't really about Gnosticism in the first place, but just use the Demiurge as an archetypal representation of an overwhelming adversarial force.
What do you think?

>falling for a silly latecomer heresy when you could be an OG 1st century Quartodeciman Binitarian foreskin-snipping Docetist
ISHYG(nostics)DDT

>>15563881
>binitarianism
>docetism
FOR WHAT PVRPOSE

I want to help enlighten my brothers

>>15563904
What makes you subscribe to Gnosticism though?
I was thinking that maybe the spread of simulation theory and such ideas through popsci in the 2010s contributed to actual schools of thought discussing the idea of the material realm being a prison becoming more popular, but maybe I'm wrong.

>>15563815
That's basically it. People realize that Modernity is shit, so they try to RVTVRN TV TRVDVTVVN, but realize that that's not actually possible and that they don't actually care about Christianity and just like pretty cathedrals, so they start making up their own theology. God is, evil is, Jesus is nice, Yahweh is mean, how can it be??? Ergo, pseudo-Gnosticism.

>>15563881
Gnosticism predates Christianity by a century or so.

>>15563927
Do you think there's value in studying actual Gnosticism for anything else than mere historical interest, or is the fact that it's been buried under Christianity and Neoplatonism telling of its flaws?
>pseudo-Gnosticism
To be honest, those vague bastardizations of Gnostic thought were attractive to me as well, at first.

>>15563649
It's a form of giving worship to an idol. Idolatry is very much in full force on 4channel.

>>15563925
It's simply the truth, which is at the root of all the major world religions. Reality as we understand it is a dream sequence, we have an obscured divine spark within us that is a thread that leads back to the source. Simulation theory is just a rehashing of existing ideas, similarly religions seem to tell the same story from many different angles, and often end up being a parody of the truth.

>>15563969
>worship to an idol.
What idol? The point of Internet Gnosticism is to "revolt" against the Demiurge.

Incredible how gnostics try to cope with the fact that evil doesn't exist

>>15563969
Fundamentalist Muslims would say the same exact thing to you, and ironically smash your iconoclastic icon

>>15563983
It depends on what you mean by "evil", we understand evil as a delusion

>>15563957
I'd say that there's value in studying all of human thinking. Whether or not you want to revive Gnosticism as a religion, however, is a different matter, which I would say is largely pointless. Religions that are entirely esoteric tend not to last via simple attrition, and it's actually impossible to BE a Gnostic because Gnosticism required a transmission of Gnosis that is simply impossible now as there are no more Gnostics to transmit the Gnosis. It's entirely binary, either you're part of the enlightened masterrace or you're a C|_|CKED HYLIC slave. You're either 100% correct, instantaneously right, entirely and discretely correct, or you're wrong. But there's no one to transmit that discrete packet of Gnosis, so the religion itself is pointless because we can never be anything but C|_|CKED HYLICS so we're all just wrong for eternity (which isn't supposed to happen according to most Gnostic formulations, as the ones that don't predict everyone becoming enlightened predict that the world will end within like a century of its founder's death).

I personally find Gnosticism to have the same problems as all forms of Academic Skepticism (if you can't know nuffin then you can't know nuffin ergo there's zero point in anything anyways so you're basically just advocating an extreme form of nihilism), which we see crop up in the Last-Tuesday-ism that flat earthers and creationists advocate. But, that's as a religion, again as an intellectual thing to study I find Gnosticism fascinating.

>>15563989
And how come the distorted understanding of a demiurge? How come ignoring all symbols inherent in the world relating the absolute?

>>15563973
>the truth, which is at the root
What truth are you referring to? The divine spark? I suppose so, but reality being a "dream sequence" isn't a very popular idea among Abrahamists, is it?
>>15563983
Could you elaborate?

>>15564019
>And how come the distorted understanding of a demiurge?
The demiurge is projecting a dream, it's an illusion but humanity has a divine spark so we're self aware and intrinsically linked to the source.
>How come ignoring all symbols inherent in the world relating the absolute?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in any case there are absolutely symbols in this reality that point to something ethereal and more real.

>>15564025
>Abrahamists
They're wrong, that's all I can say about them

>>15563990
>Religions that are entirely esoteric tend not to last
Because of the mystery tradition that makes it opaque to the uninitiated? Not all precepts of Gnosticism were like this, so why do you describe it as entirely esoteric?
>it's actually impossible to BE a Gnostic because Gnosticism required a transmission of Gnosis
I guess I just have a poor understanding of the religion, I thought that gnosis was a process of personal spiritual insight. What you're saying is that it essentially requires a guru?
Have no branches of Gnosticism historically chosen to disassociate themselves from this particular principle?
>>15564045
>They're wrong
Why?

>>15564041
>maya
Why would the demiurge do this if not for simply being evil?

>symbols in the world relating to a higher degree of Being
Yes. Is this delusion too?

>>15563983
Problem of evil hasn't been solved. Abrahamists worship a god of civilization and nothing more.

>>15563815
Dualism has been an answer to these problems since Zoroaster.

>>15564082
>Problem of Evil
There is no such a problem for Christians.

>>15564089
How is gnosticism dualistic when everything originates from and eventually reunites with the pleroma

>gnosticism
Very cringe.

>>15563969
>It's a form of giving worship to an idol.
Gnosticism says that Matter is the ultimate evil, there is no way it is about worshiping an idol.

>>15564089
And how does the problem of duality is solved? I mean, are there two absolute principles? This does not make sense. Stick to a sort of divine dialectics.

>>15564124
>dialectics
>duality
Very cringe.

>>15563983
What you mean? They say evil doesn't exist or are you the one saying that?

>>15564116
It runs the gamut from radical to mitigated dualism.

>>15564124
Neither does a good God being the creator of evil, but you'll swallow anything if it feels good.

>>15564066
"Gnosticism" is an exonym, a category applied by outsiders. No Gnostic would have referred to themselves as such, because Gnosticism lumps multiple mutually exclusive groups together. An Orthodox and Catholic Christian can both agree that the other is a Christian, but a wrong one, but two Gnostics from differing sects would never agree that the other is correct at all, because they lack Gnosis. Gnosis is a discrete packet of information, that each sect claims to have. NO ONE else has this. Absolutely no one. You can only receive Gnosis from someone who already has it because everyone else is wrong, deluded, ignorant. You cannot conjure Gnosis out of the ether with the single exception of the founder of a given sect. At best, someone else can put you in the right position to achieve Gnosis, but you can only be put in that position by someone else. You and I, by definition, cannot just pick up texts and achieve Gnosis, because that would require drawing it from the material world, which is just impossible.

This is why Gnosticism is entirely esoteric: there is no room for a laity. You have it, are working towards getting it, or will never get it. There's no room for the latter in Gnosticism, as the first two are trying to leave the world of the last third behind. So, when the sect dies out, that's it, it goes bye bye.

There are various sects that have broken away, such as the Yazidis or the Druze, but in my opinion this demonstrates the failings of the term "Gnostic", as when you strip away that "discrete Gnosis dualistic world of Yahweh vs world of God" thing, then... what's left? The category becomes meaningless. The Yazidis don't even have a demiurge, as the Peacock Angel is a good guy and knows he's working for God. They just draw their roots from "the general Greco-Jewish Hellenistic Middle Eastern intellectual milieu operating in the Levant and surrounding areas in the first and second centuries".

>>15564089
Zoroastrians are not dualistic, at least in the sense of "a dualistic religion", by their own admission.

what yjr FUCK is gnosticism

>>15564137
>It runs the gamut from radical to mitigated dualism.
I don't see how. Pleroma contains kenoma and is inherently nondualistic

>>15564137
>creater of evil
No such a thing. Evil is never created it is actualized with free will.

>>15564170
Doesn't solve the problem of non-human suffering. Animals suffer without moral agency. If they suffer as a result of man's sin then God is an incompetent.

>>15564164
Manichaeism.

>>15564142
Early Zoroastrianism was radically dualistic. There are self-described gnostics, and it doesn't rely on some kind of Zen chain of transmission from master to student.

>>15564191
> If they suffer as a result of man's sin then God is an incompetent.
It isn't God's fault someone used their Free Will to do Wrong actions.

>>15564203
Can you hold a coherent thought in your head? Animals do not have free will or moral agency like man, so there is no reason they should be punished for man's transgressions. God is an incompetent.

>>15564191
Have you read any serious and detailed text about the micro-macrocosm relation?

>>15564191
The actual religion of Gnostics, as practiced by those who followed this religion between the first and sixth or so centuries, did indeed require a "chain of transmission". Gnosis is discrete and immaterial, it cannot be conjured out of the material world. The sect leaders gaining access to it obviously implies that you can get it without being given it, but all of the evidence we have on what these people believed indicates that no, you needed to be "given" it by someone who already had it (for lack of a better term).

And no, the Zoroastrians do not believe their religion to be dualistic. There are not two sects of gods, one good and one evil, the good worshiped to gain and the bad worshiped to avoid loss, as Angra Manyu and friends do not honor contracts. They explicitly do what is wicked and evil, knowingly and consciously. At best, you can enter into a deal with them, and they'll instantly break it in the worst possible way to fuck you over. Religion, being a good thing, falls under Ahura Mazda's domain.

It's inappropriate to call this religion "dualistic" in this sense, as there isn't a meaningful duality. Philosophically, yeah, there's still good vs evil, mind vs body, spirit vs matter, etc etc etc, but that's not a dualistic religion.

>>15564203
Yes it is, because he created that bad choice to choose from

>>15564220
Retard, try reading a book without your sentimentalism

>>15564220
>Animals do not have free will
Correct, they do not have such capacity.
>so there is no reason they should be punished for man's transgressions
God gave Humans Free Will, man is responsible for his own wrong actions, God doesn't meddle in Animal kingdom(including Human's) affairs.

>>15564142
>that would require drawing it from the material world,
And gnosis is not attainable through pure inspiration and insight?
I understand better why you called it entirely esoteric, but I was assuming that some sect, at some point, would've done away with the idea of gnosis™ and would instead adopt a more all-encompassing approach towards the deliverance of the divine spark through knowledge. A more streamlined approach, so to speak.
>when you strip away that "discrete Gnosis dualistic world of Yahweh vs world of God" thing, then... what's left?
That's getting into the definitions themselves, but isn't one of the most fundamental ideas of Gnosticism that knowledge is superior to dogmatic teachings?
Then there's just the dualistic concept of a world of illusion vs. the fullness of divinity.
These two things appear to be the most foundational precepts of Gnosticism and are "sufficient" by themselves to qualify a sect as being Gnostic, I think.

>>15564230
God didn't "create" that bad choice, you carried it out, you choose to do so, you brought it into manifestation because your action.

>>15564221
>>15564230
>problem of evil is sentimentalist

Zero arguments. Unfeeling insectoid abrahamists need not apply.

>>15564239
Beep fucking boop. So hyenas eating a gazelle alive is as it should be, praise Jesus.

>>15564229
Your definition of dualism is idiosyncratic and honestly not even relevant to the discussion.

The emphasis is always on personal knowledge and deliverance, if you think gnostics were dependent on an authoritarian structure of transmission you missed the point, deeply. Valentinus and Basilides had disciples, but membership was open to all who could discern the truth in their teachings.

>>15564259
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

Read your own fucking book christoid and shut the fuck up.

>>15564262
But gnosticism has the same problem, why did Sophia let Yaldabaoth create all this shit?

>>15563983
Evil just means far removed from the source (God) here.

>>15564272
I'm not a mitigated dualist, but the pleroma is not omnipotent. Gnosticism (generally) sacrifices omnipotence for true omnibenevolence. It doesn't take a shit in the punch bowl and tell you to drink, and then blame you for wanting to spit it out.

>>15564262
>Beep fucking boop. So hyenas eating a gazelle alive is as it should be
Hyenas have no choice but do it, they are carnivores and can't eat plants, unlike humans.
At least 70%+ of the entire animal kingdom are herbivores, so this isn't the "natural" majority behavior.

>>15564272
>why did Sophia let Yaldabaoth create all this shit?
I'm going to drop my own spicy take on this, it was all sincerely for fun

>>15564282
>the pleroma is not omnipotent.
There is no omnipotent force in gnosticism? What about the chaos?
>>15564293
>it's all a prank bro you're being recorded

>>15564116
1 becomes 2

>>15564291
Why would God create creatures that crave flesh? If he didn't, why does Adam's fall drag the rest of nature down with it? Couldn't God have created another way of testing man's repentance? Does someone who want to be a painter, but born with an untalented mind, through no fault of his own, has he been given unconditional free will, or is he as determined as the rest of nature? Why would God refuse to limit our free will by eliminating the possibility of evil, but still limit our free will anyways?

>>15564303
>>it's all a prank bro you're being recorded
Yes.

>>15564303
No, Chaos is either an excretion or the "outside" of the pleroma. It isn't omnipotent. The pleroma is omnipotent within itself, and that's all it needs to be.

>>15564262
>>15564025
>>15564082
>>15564133
>>15564279
Yes. The ''problem'' of evil is pure sentimentalism. Evil has no existence in itself. Nothing that exists is naturally evil. This is irrefutable and it is tiring to repeat myself about it.

>>15564269
This isn't "my book", I'm a simple deist. No ancient book should be taken literally on its entirety.
But to answer the passage, Darkness was necessary to make our existent reality or our creation if you will, however it is not the intended way our reality should be manifested.

>>15564321
Abrahamism implies objective morality though.

>>15564321
Would you say raping kids is good or evil?

>>15564321
Evil = delusion, we need to define our terms because Nicean Christianity has obscured these "issues"

>>15564336
Evil becomes actualized. Are you, dare I say, retarded?

>>15564319
>an excretion or the "outside" of the pleroma
So it contains the pleroma and the kenoma, which are dissociated? And chaos is the overarching superset of everything, nothing else contains it?
So it's not omnipotent within itself then?

>>15564332
>omnipotent being
>needing necessary conditions and rulesets and axioms to create
>ending up something he did not intend or foresee
AHAHAHAHAH OH NO NO NO

>>15564321
Evil has a qualitative character all its own, which means it has a positive existence, which means it exists.

>>15564340
It's delusional the same way eating meat or hating your brother is delusion.

>>15564321
Evil here doesn't mean some corny moral thing. It means being far from God. It means not being pure. That's why matter is evil.

>>15564262
Zoroastrians themselves explicitly state that their religion is not dualistic, for the reasons I outlined. It's really that simple, dude.

>>15564247
Part of this gets into the problem of us not knowing how these religions worked, and running off of Christian sources (who wanted this people dead and gone). Many of these sects do have mythologies and systems that, if you stripped away the purely esoteric Gnosis transmission, would be perfectly fine exoteric religions (Sethianism's cosmology arguably makes more sense than the orthodox Christian one).

You're right about the definitions, but my point is this: The two defining characteristics of Gnosticism are
>rigid mind-body dualism
and
>discrete transmissible ineffable Gnosis beyond human conceptuality
With religions and philosophies, like Yazidism and Druze which get lumped under this term, where these are absent... How are they Gnostic? It's just a weird minor Abrahamic religion, then. At that point, how are orthodox Islam, Christianity, and Judaism not Gnosticism, then?

Obviously we can define things however we want, but in this sense I think the common usage of the term is lacking.

>>15564345
There's no overarching superset, only pleroma and kenoma sharing a mutual crack/boundary. The gnostics were specifically responding to the ancients who thought Chaos was the first principle (when it's an abortive emanation or otherwise a metaphysical trashbin for abortive emanations).

>>15564355
Whence this principle of delusion? You know you're going to have to do something better than just renaming the problem. Some gnostics preferred calling evil "ignorance" anyways.

>>15564336
>>15564340
>>15564354
>>15564364
Let me try to make it more clear since you all seem to lack reading comprehension. Again: Evil has no existence in itself. There is nothing naturally evil because evil depends on existence itself, evil is parasitic. Its positive existence and power are leeched off existence-energeia.

>>15564354
>ending up something he did not intend or foresee
What you mean? We manifest our reality according how we think, feel and act. Is how we think, feel and act bad and wrong? Then the manifest reality will be Bad and Wrong. See GIGO system in computer science for reference.
And God is not a "being", no attribute can be given to him. See Apopathic theology.

>>15564321
If you're doing the whole Emptiness, Sunyata thing, yeah you're right, but within Abrahamism evil is defined in pretty clear terms (distance from Yahweh) and you're gonna have to demonstrate a whole bunch of other things are Empty before demonstrating that evil is.

>>15564387
Assuming he's doing the Buddhist Non-Dual thing, there's a whole schema of how this happens (tl;dr fear of impermanence, ignorance comes from being scared of dying).

>>15564387
Delusion is ignorance, the material world is a projected distortion, or in other words a dream sequence. It's not real, it's all a play, and it doesn't last. Being caught up in primal warfare, distress, and hatred are all delusion from the truth which is perfection and love

>>15564414
Huh? I thought it was an absence, when did it become a parasite that can siphon positivity to itself? How could God's creation contain such an immense flaw?

>>15564415
And you're the ones telling me to stop posting flowery nonsense.

>>15564446
That sounds Buddhist, which doesn't have a real problem of evil.

>>15564458
There are similar ideas in all religions for the most part, if you compartmentalize these things you'll never get it.

The Nag Hammadi discovery inspired a lot of popular art, like Philip K. Dick, Lain, Texhnolyze, The Matrix...

>>15564310
I do not know, honestly.
>Why would God refuse to limit our free will by eliminating the possibility of evil, but still limit our free will anyways?
I think one thing we can really say about God, is that he hates Cowardice. Everything in our universe is in constant movement in one way or the other, if he had "limited" our Free Will, it would be against the principle that everything is constant movement in our universe.

>>15564486
based

>>15564506
Sounds like a God of Chaos to me.

>>15564449
>And you're the ones telling me to stop posting flowery nonsense.
I can't tell who is who in the thread, but only quote with an argument.

>>15564521
if your impersonal God-Nothingness can only emanate flawed realities "red in tooth and claw", then it's just a mindless abyss

How do Gnostics still exist after Plotinus (pbuh) refuted them

>>15564539
It is unknown to what "Gnostics" he addressed his thoughts, it probably only was to "Sethian" gnosticism.

>>15564504
The Matrix is faux-gnostic, though. It portrays a phony digital world and then when humans wake up there is a material world, only that in this one the machines rule. It's a fake awakening. It's material and soulless as a Gnostic film. Entertaining sci-fi, yes. But it should not be taken seriously.

>>15564560
Not really, it's like a strangely evolved/inverted gnosticism, mainly because the machines/"archons" have already accounted for the gnosis narrative and adapted the control system to it.

>>15564539
Why do Chrisitians exist after hundreds of people refuted them?

>>15564504
Also Ergo Proxy.

>>15564569
Good question. Porphyry wrecked them .

>>15564529
Man may create his own paradise, or his own hell. Is your own responsibility. Tough.

Why does the Demiurge have to be evil? Why can't he be a misguided imperfect being, or even a teacher of sorts?

>>15564519
see>>15564594

>>15564375
So here kenoma and pleroma are A and B, intersecting into the divine spark, but U doesn't actually exist? Pleroma precedes chaos as a concept, and contains it? Sorry I'm not very clear on the cosmology

>>15564568
It's more like a perverted sci-fi rendition of Plato's cave. A nerd's reading, if you will. Something that goes from a phony digital world to a machine-ruled material world is not really Gnostic. In fact, it's a very dangerous idea to spread. Predictive programing, perhaps. But like I said, it's an entertaining flick to pass the time.

>>15564504
>Texhnolyze
How's that? I'm interested. I always saw Texhnolyze as absurdist at its core.

>>15564596
I don't think he's evil in that sense, it's easy to see it that way when you're suffering physically but I think this reality can also be seen as a school for our souls.

>>15564632
Is good, lots of symbolism and occult themes.
The most important aspect of it is probably this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
Do not fall to the meme that it is only a nihilistic show.

>>15564652
I know, I've seen it, it's one of my favorite shows. I just don't see where the gnostic symbolism is supposed to be. Is it because the duality between the underground city and the surface? That doesn't seem right, because the surface is depicted as devoid of all meaning.

>>15564569
>>15564589
>people refuted God
wew

I remember mainstream talking about gnosticism back in 2006 when the Davinci Code came out the gospel of Judas was translated.

>>15564449
IN ITSELF, holy shit can you even read? it is something as long as it has something to corrupt, to take power of

>>15564740
No, not God but the religion.

>>15564665
> Is it because the duality between the underground city and the surface?
Is hard to say what exactly it may be. Is probably has to do with the holographic principle, "As above, so below" from Hermeticism, indeed Hermeticism is also part of Gnosticism.
The show is ultimately about the brain and our mind (consciousness), that's why the penultimate episode is called Encephalopathy and the last one "Myth", because what the MC goes through is his own experience, his development of Consciousness, his journey, in Alchemy called the Great Work, Alchemy being part of Hermeticism, and of course of Gnosticism.

>>15564420
Distance from God, becoming more aware of samsara-ing than nirvana-ing, whatever you want to call. And no, it has nothing to do with buddhism sunyata. God's energeia is abundance and sustains this world.

>>15564757
>What is Christ around whom the entire religion revolves.

>>15564594
The world was foregrounded before he came on the scene, blaming man for a thermodynamic universe is the most warped anthropocentrism I've ever seen

>>15564624
Think of it like a sphere, with Light and Darkness being its two halves/hemispheres. There's no need to posit a "superspace" they happen in. That's the Manichaean idea anyways.

>>15564751
So evil is an existent principle where existence is concerned, got it. You solved nothing.

>>15564772
The religion was perverted into something beyond what's in the Bible.

>>15563881
>foreskin-snipping
Fuck off

>>15564794
Yes. It is nothing in itself, it is completely dependent on the Good. It is not self-subsistent, it is not fertile.

>>15564765
>God actualizes and sustains the condition of possibility for evil
Awful. How do you live with yourself?

>>15564794
>blaming man for a thermodynamic universe is the most warped anthropocentrism I've ever seen
Entropy is a thing, sure. Aswell as Syntropy. Chaos isn't the only thing that can exist in manifested reality.

>>15564794
>>15564828
Just to correct: it is not a principle.

>>15564828
So God can't even keep a non-existent nothing that is nothing with zero predicates from infecting his benevolent creation?

>>15564835
It is not God who actualizes evil. God is not simply Power, He has and bestows it.

>>15564806
How? I don't know if you are aware of what Christianity is (since I had to point out how Christ is the kernel of the religion), but the Bible is literally the conditioning of our faith.

>>15564853
Here we go again with more sentimentalism. You have existence, you have power, you have life, you have intellect. Do I really need to expand on this?

>>15564856
I grew up Catholic so that's what I have in mind. It's a perversion of Christianity.

>>15564867
>just smell the roses bro, wow so pretty
And you're calling me sentimentalist.

>>15564856
If God provides evil with sustenance, unwillingly or not, he is the enabler of evil. Especially if he is omnipotent.

>>15564758
That's an interesting take. Have you seen Haibane Renmei? The same people worked on it and I've noticed the themes of separation between two worlds and the journey of personal rebirth are quite similar in both. Though Haibane is a bit more conventional in the way it portrays religious symbolism.

Not sure how branch davidians and the demiurge are connected but this is spooky nonetheless.

>>15563815
>I'm under the impression that a lot of the memes about Gnosticism aren't really about Gnosticism in the first place, but just use the Demiurge as an archetypal representation of an overwhelming adversarial force.
+1

>>15564869
What is a perversion of it? You said nothing about it.

>>15564882
You're simply attached. Out of your own intellect. I'm sorry.

>>15564366
Could you point me towards specific resources that expand upon this idea of gnosis needs to be transmitted and cannot be independently attained?

>>15564943
if your God can't prevent a non-thing from infringing on his creation, he is impotent. you've said nothing to change my mind on this. you're just a crypto-dualist like every Christian who thinks Satan is the prince of this world but can't muster up the spiritual courage to think a principle of evil coeternal with the Good.

>>15564539
>Plotinus (pbuh) refuted them
How?

>>15564889
Have yet to watch it
>The same people worked on it and I've noticed the themes of separation between two worlds and the journey of personal rebirth are quite similar in both. Though Haibane is a bit more conventional in the way it portrays religious symbolism.
Perennialism. In the end all traditions try to show the same thing but using different imagery.

>>15564991
>Perennialism. In the end all traditions try to show the same thing but using different imagery.

perennialists are almost universally pro-cosmic, gnosticism is more or less anti-cosmic. perennialists worship the prime mover/actuator of evil. ironically, Evola was the closest to a gnostic in this sense, he had no patience for a Platonic cosmos

>>15563649
Pessimism is a suresign of decaying society.

>>15564976
>a principle of evil coeternal with the Good.
This isn't necessary for evil to exist, God may simply not be omnipotent in this particular plane.

>>15565011
Then he isn't omnipotent where it counts, if something limits God's power than it is either coeternal with Him, or emerges Outside of Him (???) in time and through time.

>>15563649
>Gnosticism becoming much more mainstream and frequently talked
aside from 4chan(nel) where is this happening?

>>15564976
>crypto-dualist
>can't muster up spiritual courage to think a principle of evil coeternal with Good
you are really retarded.

>>15565022
The Demiurge is not coeternal with the emanations of Pleroma, though

>>15565002
>perennialists are almost universally pro-cosmic
What makes you say that?

>>15563649
le flying spaghetti monster atheists grew up a little and realized how mislead they've been

>>15565002
> gnosticism is more or less anti-cosmic
Valentinianism wasn't for instance.

>>15563649
Because no one thinking rationally can really buy into privatio boni
There is something deeply wrong with reality, doubly so if you think a loving God designed in shit like Alzheimer's

>>15565054
Gnostics are awakened Christians most of the time.

>>15565096
That's why I said more or less.

>>15565035
You got something to say or don't you? That's what I thought.

>>15565036
Only if you're a mitigated dualist.

>>15565160
>Only if you're a mitigated dualist.
Why?

>>15564976
>prevent a non-thing from infringing on his creation
you were a non-thing who infringed on his creation

>>15565043
They very much believe the universe is divine and rationally ordered, and evil is an exception within the Good and not the other way around

>>15565193
So I'm causa sui now? Kek.

>>15565186
Because a radical dualist like Mani doesn't believe the pleroma can transgress against itself, so there must be a principle of transgression outside the pleroma or light-universe

>>15565192
Gnostics believe that too if you extend the "universe" to also mean what is outside of kenoma

>>15565160
Take you yourself as an example. You have existence, life and intellect. Yet you cherish the most dumb ideas corrupting your intelligence, living a life miserably, making your existence null. Now is God impotent if he bestow all of that to you but refrain from intervening in the very power he bestowed to you?

>>15565204
>causa sui
i give up, you're beyond salvation

>>15565216
No, the cosmos = universe is created, the pleroma is uncreated.

>>15565232
When this God stops eating his children, then I'll thank him. Until then, how does Saklas' boot taste?

>>15563649
mysticism
/thread

>>15565310
>the pleroma is uncreated.
Does this matter? Are we referring to existence or to creation here?

>>15565333
The light-god is absolutely alien and beyond creation, he can't be understood in terms of the system's rules except by negation, he is what transcends the system.

Why don't gnostics trust god? In Christianity salvation is given by god, but gnostics think they can reach it through insight, without god's help. Why is that?

>>15565590
Because his creation is patently flawed. Why trust a bungling fool?

>>15565590
The Demiurge is a false God. The true God is the Monad. The source to where our souls seek to reach and be one with God.

>>15565598
What are your thoughts on the Cathars.

>>15565598
>>15565635
I meant Christ, not Saklas

>>15565635
If Yahweh is the demiurge then are the angels actually archons?

>>15563649
Gnosticism is being increasingly pushed. On YouTube, in fiction, it's constantly alluded to. For what purpose, I'm not sure, but the subversion of Christianity is a part of it.

>>15566369
this.
gnosticism is disguised everywhere; we can see it now in modern physics

>>15566280
From that point of view, yes.

>>15563815
you answered it yourself. people are attracted to the idea that ethereal is trapped in the un-divine material. there is a longing for the "something more" in the human soul that isn't satisfied. that resonates with people. as for why its only now relevant, the nag hamadi were found in 1945 and its true memetic growth and lifespan started then.
>Also, save for those aforementioned core tenants, nobody seems to really give a shit about the rest
thats the case with most beliefs. the core ideas are what the popularity spreads through.
>even the practical aspects of attaining gnosis
im not sure if there is a path towards gnosis. ive always assumed they believed that gnosis came to you instead of the other way around. me not knowing about it kinda proves your point but ive only been introduced very recently because i decided to do my paper on pkd.

>>15566369
>>15566463
Give examples.
Everything is a conspiracy with you people, what would even be the point?
Gnosticism predates Christianity. If only for that, it being some kind of anti-Christian tool for subversion seems unlikely.

>>15566599
>predates Christianity
Nothing 'predates' Christianity.

>>15566663
In some sense that's true, nothing predates all emergent things and ideas

>>15566599
>Gnosticism predates Christianity
yes, gnosticism is an umbrella term and had some appearances with, for example, gymnosophists. not that it is fundamentally devised to subvert and undermine christianity (many gnostic sects were and still are though, viz. modern physics) but its kernel is anti-christian.
btw christ and his religion were present in egyptian muthopoetic mystagogy

>>15566599
>>15566663
They aren't even diametrically opposed, so what's the argument about? On a fundamental level, both recognize Christ as the savior, and both acknowledge the Father. They're still mostly incompatible with each other, but people need to stop acting as if Gnosticism is some kind of Luciferian ploy to undermine the foundations of Christian faith when neither denies the most important part of scripture which is Christ himself

>>15566692
>modern physics
What?
>its kernel is anti-christian.
Hardly.

>>15566692
How is modern physics gnostic? I haven't heard this take before.

>>15566599
>predates christianity
how does it predate abraham, jacov, moses?

>>15566704
I would say anti-judaic, I think only a couple texts have a positive view of Yahweh (even though he's always in a subordinate position)

>>15566709
It's not. Modern physics aren't even dualistic no matter how much mental gymnastics you want to put yourself through. Physics will always be inherently materialist and reductionist

>>15566718
Okay. But as I said, since Gnosticism does recognize Christ as the savior, it's technically not that different from Christianity regarding the process of salvation; in the end, it's pretty much just substituting Yahweh for the Monad as the Father

>>15566718
>>15566754
There's also a distinction made between Yahweh as the OT God and Yeshua as the NT God, so you're right, Gnosticism is anti-judaic essentially but I wouldn't say it's particularly opposed to Christianity

>>15566711
It depends on the exact flavour, but it often has Zoroastrian roots.

>>15563983
I dunno.. I've seen videos of people gutting people alive.

I'm pretty sure evil exists.

>>15566697
>recognize Christ as the savior
They don't. 'Christ' refers to the Messiah, the son of David, who has to be human. They do not believe Jesus Christ is human.

>>15566765
Why are you looking at those videos anon?

>>15566709
>>15566704
>>15566723
their cosmology.
bythos = symmetrical nothingness
passion in the pleroma = higgs field flutuation
fall from the pleroma = emergence of boson partciles with their fall in their minimum
simon magus employing math as magic

>>15566280
Aeons are different from Archons.

>>15566762
please go on

>>15566773
I'm pretty sure docetism is only a precept for some gnostic sects, not Gnosticism in general

>>15566794
Yahweh -> Aeon
His servants -> Archons

>>15566789
Damn I was just reading some stuff about this. Pleroma as the original symmetry "cracked" by polarization, and the demiurge is just a name for circular movement that activates and maintains these continua

Any readings that compare gnosticism to this stuff? I'd love to read it

>>15566866
Yahweh isn't an aeon, not really, more like the shadow of an Aeon

>>15566795
https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastian_nag_hammadi.htm

I think Bogomilism is arguably related, if you want something more recent. Iirc there's a debate over whether and how much it was influenced by Paulicianism and Manichaeism, with Paulicianism not being related to Zoroastrianism (at least not especially) while Manichaeism is.

>>15566797
Gnostic don't believe in the dual nature and dual energies/will of the Messiah.

>>15563649
recommend books to get started with gnosticism?? other than the nag hammadi and gnostic bible ofc

>>15566873
sadly i dont know any book dedicated exclusively to this topic but i think the best to do is to study both gnosticism and modern physics side by side

>>15566925
how the hell any of this implies moses' books having zoroastrian roots

>>15566969
>>15566873
I think what you're looking for is a bit like the holofractal theory proposed by Nassim Haramein. There is a subreddit about it and some books too.

>>15566969
Then allow me fren

https://radicaluncertainty.com/2016/01/16/the-discontinuity/

He name-drops the pleroma halfway through or so

>>15566957
Steer clear of new age garbage.

Jacques Lacarriere - The Gnostics
Hans Jonas - The Gnostic Religion
Kurt Rudolph - Gnosis

Big boy shit. LaCarriere for the mentality, Jonas for a comprehensive analysis of systems and themes, Rudolph for the meat.

>>15567033
>new age garbage
all of gnosticism is new age garbage though.

>>15567033
checked and checked

>>15566969
>the best to do is to study both gnosticism and modern physics side by side

>>15566998
>how the hell any of this implies moses' books having zoroastrian roots
It doesn't. I'm guessing you're ESL, predates in this case just means "is older than" not "directly influenced" (which was also the point of the earlier post, that it can't be anti-Christian because it's too old).

>>15567041
Not really. Once you read the real text you can detect what's new age and what's legit. Neo-Gnosticism=/=Gnosticism.

>>15567052
>it can't be anti-Christian because it's too old
This is a silly argument. Satan is older than the first Christian (Adam) and he is anti-Christian.

>>15567041
Nah

>>15567064
>legit
There is no "legit" gnosticism. There are no valid teachers who have actual "gnosis" left over from when these degenerate sects were rightfully annihilated.

>>15567080
>christoid still seething almost 2000 years later
Pottery

>>15567052
oh certainly i misinterpreted ''zoroastrian roots'' referring to abraham, jacov and moses. but indeed as i said before, like the gymnosophists, gnosticism is not aimed at undermining christianity but with its advent many gnostic sects tried to subvert it.

>>15567066
>the first Christian (Adam)

>>15567020
>>15567017
nice, i'll check these out. thanks

>>15567080
Jewish circumcision is a blood ritual between them and the Demiurge (Satan/YHWH). You are worshipping this same entity and therefore unknowingly worshipping Satan if you're a Christian. You still have time to save your soul.

>>15567100
You should have a look at Bogomilism's influence in Southern France around the time of the first crusades. I don't think it saw itself as undermining anything, it was a secretive mystery religion in many ways but it wasn't out trying to destroy Catholicism. However the early Crusades were used as a tool to massacre many heretics including Bogomilists and bring communities back into line with Catholicism, so it was in many ways described and maybe perceived as such.

>>15567155
i know anon, not all gnostic sects were directly against christianity, even though being essentially anti-christian, but there were some of them with this intent.

>>15566778
Just to remind myself of the depths of human depravity. And to remind myself that my life is nowhere near as bad as it could be. Quite the opposite actually.

>>15567151
>Satan/YHWH
Cringe. I thought /lit/ at least read Job.

>Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD (YHWH), and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
>So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

>>15567088
I don't need to "seethe" when I can just walk 20 minutes to church and have a valid priest who is in a direct line of succession to Jesus Christ Himself. Can a gnostic find a "valid" "teacher" in his demonic "tradition"?

>>15567249
>“From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
what a cheeky cunt

>>15567151
>unknowingly worshipping Satan if you're a Christian
Satan met YHWH and tried to trick Him into worshiping Satan, the thing gnostics do. He even used their favorite method (perverting the Old Testament to suit their own demoniac needs).

>>15563649
reminder that Plotinus and Marsilio Ficino already destroyed these retards

>>15567262
What's demonic about it?

>>15567262
>priest who is in a direct line of succession to Jesus Christ Himself.

huh

>>15564321
>Yes. The ''problem'' of evil is pure sentimentalism
This is true, but you don't want to learn too hard on this argument because at the end of the day all that Christian-posters really have to convince people that Christianity is true is appeals to sentimentality

>>15567450
*lean too hard

>>15567450
>problem of evil is just muh feels
No it isnt you fucking faggot

>>15564458
no, but they do have a problem of how is samsara and the universe etc supposed to arise without being caused by a supreme God, it's a big hole in their metaphysics

>>15567461
yes, it is

>>15567512
Samsara is beginningless, the closest thing there is to a cosmogony in Buddhism is the wheel of dependent origination.

>>15567517
Why?

>>15567525
Yes, those are both weasel explanations that don't actually solve the problem. Beginningless cycles of birth and death cannot magically cause themselves and they don't exist eternally without being caused. It's completely incoherent to say that it just exists eternally without being caused or maintained by anything. And if you don't know how or why it arises there is no inherent reason why someone who was liberated wouldn't fall into samsara again.

>>15567598
It's self-caused friendo, that's why the movement is circular and can only be circular

>>15567608
circular cycles cannot cause themselves

>>15567614
They can only cause themselves, out of their intrinsic self-consistency (because, again, they're circular)

>>15564123
Not all idols are material

>>15567624
Circularity only has to do with once they already exist. There is no cycle or circle between existence and non-existence; that something is a circular cycle does not in the slightest provide an explanation for how or why that thing exists, it is incapable of providing this explanation

>>15567667
In any case, Buddhism never claimed to have these answers

>>15567686
I never asserted that it did (although many schools of Buddhism and their proponents love to posture as though they do have all the answers, until you start pulling on the threads and unraveling the ball of yarn); but my only point was that metaphysically it's incoherent. If you don't about metaphysics and solely care about praxis that's not an issue for you though.

>>15567710
Combine Valentinus with the Buddha and you have your answers, especially since ignorance is their principle of evil, too. The physical universe is literally reified primordial terror

Where is this "YHWH is the devil" shit coming from all of a sudden?

>>15567733
Probably a speud on twitter.

>>15567733
There was a 300+ post thread a week or so ago centering around discussion ignited by this article on that subject

https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/

>>15567760
>unz
I was right, fuckin speuds.

>>15567723
>Combine Valentinus with the Buddha and you have your answers,
That's incorrect, since in his system all things originate from the eternal Monad and the destination of all beings who attain gnosis is the Monad's Pleroma, which translates to "fullness", and may be compared to the Sanskrit word Purnam (fullness) that the Upanishads describe Brahman with. Valentinus is much closer to Hinduism than Buddhism, and the holes in Buddhism are not patched up by a comparison with Valentius, because Valentius like the Upanishads states that the Godhead is the source of all, whereas Buddhism doesn't have an explanation for what is the source of all.

>>15567774
Unz is god-tier

>>15567822
Look at this speud forgetting that he said it's a tricky satan already.

>>15567827
When I say God I don't mean Yahweh or the Triune God or Christ

>>15567865
Yeah, you mean Satan. We get it.

>>15567873
Yahweh is Satan, God is neither of them

>>15567881
Yeah, because he's tricky. We get it you fuckin speud.

>>15567908
>speud
it's supposed to be written pseud, based on the prefix Pseudo-

>>15567914
>>15567914
>prefix
I bet you're some speudointersexual, speuding all your stupid speud ideas everywhere. Just say broken ya speud.

For me it's constant dissociation from my body stemming from gender dysphoria. Things just feel fake and not real, like all of existence is set up to just fuck with you. You probably wouldn't get it

(Abrahamists think they can strike a deal with Yaldabaoth (Yahweh) whole tranners are all pneumatics)

>>15568975
I don't see how transgenderism is gnostic – buying into the modern notion of 'gender' shows that you take your body more seriously than ever, as well as the social trappings that attend it (being transgender is a social construct that is only intelligible in the modern West, and depends on contemporary notions of personal identity, demographic categories [themselves related to census-taking, advertisement, and the consumption of brands] and material conditions involving bodily modification and genres of pornography).

Why would it ever even occur to a 'pneumatic' that there was a 'right' body they should be in, and try to fix their life's problems by forcefully caring out a material and social niche for themselves to be 'accepted' by a demonic world-system? Who but someone that has bought into the world fully would ever seek satisfaction in something like this?

Gnostic Discord: https://discord.gg/h3KqkCV

>>15567396
Proof?

>>15567249
>>15567301
Gnostics don't believe in the OT, so you're not making an argument.

>>15566928
But they still believe that Jesus was sent to this realm to save us, more specifically to free the sparks of divinity contained in the material realm. So gnostics don't question Jesus' central role in salvation at all. In fact he's still the most important figure.

>>15564815
The genital mutilation of infant boys is just another way they feed the archons

>>15564867
You are a faggot, chiefy-boy. A truly omnipotent god could create a world where evil doesn’t exist. Concepts like pain or sadness don’t need to exist, nothing needs to exist. If a creator exists than things exist because a creator created them, simple as. Do I need to dumb it down even further or can you swallow pre-masticated slurry?

>>15568975
Or you could just not be retarded.

You know, adding all these layers of retardation onto your identity is probably what's making you go crazy. Perhaps you could take a walk and get connected with nature, and talk with yourself. Human rights literally only exist on paper, and I've yet to see someone actually treat another human truly as an equal. So, when you say trans rights are human rights, you're referring to two concepts that don't inherently exist, even for a "normal" person.

tl;dr kill yourself and be reborn :^)

>>15570390
Both nihilists like you and degenerates will get the rope.

>>15566928
Doesn't matter.
>And they said to him, “Trust in our Lord Yeshua The Messiah, and you shall live, you and your household.”
According to Christians themselves, Gnostics will be saved.

>>15567396
All this talk about how Plotinus refuted the gnostics but I don't see any proof ever being posted

>>15566369
Because it is thinly veiled atheism/nihilism.

>>15570838
Maybe pick up a book little brobro.
Marsilio Ficino was truly a man of enlightenment.

>>15571151
>thinly veiled atheism/nihilism.
This is a really fucking retarded post, at least have the decency to back up your moronic claim with some kind of explanation

>>15571154
>Maybe pick up a book
Not an argument. Provide actual proof of that alleged refutation or stop posting.

>>15571157
>>15571162
Why are gnostics so immature and angry?

>>15571165
>asked to provide proof for his own claim
>"why are you so angry?"
Wrong board bro, you may have been looking for >>>/b/

>>15571165
Stupid people tend to be emotionally driven.

>>15566692
>its kernel is anti-christian.
Not really, see the Cathars. In essence the disagreements pertain almost exclusively to the interpretation of the Old testament, and gnostics will back it up by bringing in their own apocryphal texts so it's not even a different interpretation per se since Christianity dismisses the Nag Hammadi as non-canonical in the first place
Of course it's still heretical, but not anti-christian at its core

>>15571224
>heretical
>not anti-christian at its core
No such thing. All heresies are constructed by demons to drive people into hell. This is explicitly anti-christian at its core, as Christians do not want people to go to hell.

>>15571326
Heretical != blasphemous

>>15571326
>hell
No indication of its existence according to scripture.

>>15571385
have you ever read the NT?

>>15571380
All heresy is blasphemous, because it perverts truth, and Christ is the Truth.

>>15571385
>No indication of its existence according to scripture.

>>15571407
>>15571416
Show me exactly where eternal damnation (which is what "hell" is generally understood to mean) is mentioned in the NT.

>>15571436
>NOOO ITS JUST A METAPHOR YOU DONT GET IT!!!

>>15571449
So you don't have an argument then?

>>15571454
>So you don't have an argument then?

>>15571463
I accept your concession.
Now post another soijak while quoting me, midwit.

>>15571475
>I accept your concession.
>Now post another soijak while quoting me, midwit.

>>15571224
Gnosticism is just the gentrified strain of Satanism. "Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" is still its central tenet.

>in this moment i am euphoric
>not because of any phony demiurges blessing
>but because i am enlightened by my own transcendence of the material plane

>>15571478
>knowledge is satanist

>>15571505
>if I call it knowledge that means it is true

>>15571496
>transcend materialism
>go on 4chan to post about it for upvotes

>>15563815
People are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the state of the world.

>>15571573
That's true, but instead of actually seeking spirituality with substance they go into temporary lifestyle brands, newage spiritual movements like wiccanism or neo-gnosticism.

>>15571544
You're the one who mentioned knowledge. By the way, still no response to this >>15571436
>>15571599
What's neo-gnosticism and how is it a lifestyle brand? How do you define spirituality with substance?
These are not loaded questions by the way

>>15571505
>you surely can apprehend the nature of ultimate reality
>god is not utterly inscrutable
>language is not just a symbolic representation of tolma of being
>certainly a specific set of symbosl is fixed as a password for eternal bliss

>>15571627
None of these things are stated in gnosticism, try again.

>>15571611
spirituality with substance is not striving to immanentize the eschaton, it is not having the hubris to think of yourself as exactly the same thing which created you, change your state from nothingness to becoming (and wants you to be in peaceful rest with him in his eternity), it not to confound and define the transcendent in any category of reason.

>>15571639
what is knowledge then

>>15571436
Matthew 10:28
Mark 9:43
Romans 2:7-9
Hebrews 10:27
Revelation 20:10
Revelation 14:11
Revelation 20:13-14
Luke 16:19-31

Gnosticism is the first proper step for Abrahamists to Buddhism.

>>15571670
>be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Is the obliteration of being the same as eternal damnation?

>>15571670
I appreciate the actual answer, thank you. I was wrong.

I think people lost their faith in common religion and want to find some transcendence in something unknown. People seek "otherness".

>>15563925
Think it has to do with the fall of scientism as the dominant philosophical paradigm. People are starting to realize the scientific method is incomplete or incapable of grappling certain questions, especially when it comes to consciousness.

>>15563925
>>15571750
In this way "simulation theory" and "the matrix" phenomena that rose in recent decades in pop science is just a way to revive ancient problems about consciousness and the nature of reality that scientism failed to resolve.

>>15571733
Why did people lose faith in Christianity? Or rather, what is it about Gnosticism that provides people with something they failed to find in Christianity?
>>15571750
>>15571779
I don't see how the fall of scientism relates to the popularization of Gnosticism (or rather, pop-Gnosticism, since we're talking about things like the simulation theory). On the contrary, most people seem to want to interpret the idea of mind-body dualism through the lens of materialism still, as paradoxical as it may seem.
Scientism failing should give rise to a newfound faith in religion in general. People don't care about Pleroma or Kenoma or Sophia or Gnosis or any of that, the only "Gnostic" concept pop-Gnostics focus on is the Demiurge and the implication that the material plane is a spiritual test, or otherwise a temporary state of being that we must break free from in order to attain the next state. But this isn't even Gnosticism, actually it's not even invalidated by Christianity at all.

>>15564071
Perhaps the same way the Demiurge made the material realm unknowingly (unconsciously) reproducing elements of the spiritual realm, while believing they were all original creations, he could have slipped those symbols into our consciousness (perception) without understanding their true meaning.

Because they're too stupid to understand one of Plotinus most important points.
If anything is made evil, such that it shouldn't exist, then what created this is evil and what made that has to be evil, etc all the way up to the highest as evil.
If the highest is the root cause of everything and evil positively exists then the highest is evil.

>in this moment, i am euphoric

>>15572126
Yes? That's the point.

>>15572558
I don't think you understand your own LARP religion, dumb dumb. The Demiurge isn't the highest power in Gnosticism, or in the texts it plagiarizes from to sound smart.

>>15572569
I don't think you understand Gnosticism. If the first cause is responsible for evil, the first cause is, in some capacity, evil or an enabler of evil. So gnostics look beyond the first cause to a transcendent God or light-realm. We've all read Plotinus friend, sooner or later you're gonna have to come up with your own refutations than depending on some polemic that was just Plotinus preaching to the Neoplatonic choir.

>>15572592
>I don't think you understand Gnosticism
No, buddy. I understand it fine. It's clear to anyone who understands one or the other that you don't.
>We've all read Plotinus friend
No you haven't.
Tell me the difference between him and Proclus.

>>15572608
Proclus systematizes Plotinus' system, takes Platonism's "oneness is a metaphysical property" to its logical extreme. Plotinus isn't particularly concerned with the henads.

I don't think you've read any real gnostic text, if you think that one of their premises is a criticism of their premises, kek.

>>15572639
Proclus is highly critical of Plotinus' idea that matter is itself evil, he also disagrees that the One is the cause of itself, and he is very much different in that he stressed a higher importance in the practice of theurgy for salvation of the soul.

You haven't read either. Nice try using Wikipedia to try and get around being exposed.

>>15572653
>waaah you didn't say exactly what I said

Now tell me the difference between Valentinus and Mani.

>>15572679
I asked you a pretty simple question that would be obvious to anybody who actually read them. It wasn't exactly an abstract question, its been long discussed from since the time they lived.

>>15572703
Just answer the question you git.

>>15572679
>>15572703
Furthermore, you shouldn't have lied. There is no reason for you to have needed to lie by pretending to read something you didn't. You should have figured you would be exposed for your lack of reading on /lit/, a board actually about reading books. You have no legitimacy left in this thread.

>>15572718
>hasn't read the gnostics in a gnosticism thread
>confuses their premises for a slam dunk refutation

>Plotinus can still BTFO Gnostics 1800 years later
What a fucking boss.

>>15572746
Well, it wouldn't be so simple if they were literate.

Plotinus and the Neoplatonists may be right but Gnosticism has a better aesthetic and that is irrefutable
It's some real-life Evangelion shit

>>15572765
Nah.

>>15572777
I'm right though. Even the terminology and symbolism are great. The Monad, Sophia, Aeons and Archons, Pleroma and Kenoma, no wonder Catholics were jealous of the Gnostics' superior cosmology and sperged out at them so hard.

>>15572798
Gnostics didn't even invent any of those things.
The only things good about it are already in Neoplatonism, which was the most influential school of all the Renaissance beside Christianity.

Hence... a Da Vinci drawing.

>>15572814
>Gnostics didn't even invent any of those things.
I didn't say they invented the concepts, I'm saying their aesthetic take on those concepts was superior compared to Neoplatonism. The Monad sounds cooler than "the One". And what the fuck is a world-soul, come on. Neoplatonists sucked at naming things, they (or rather Plato) only got the Demiurge right.

>>15572814
There's no concept of Sophia in Neoplatonism.

>>15572827
>was superior
Clearly not, considering nobody cared, or indeed, does care about it, historically. That's your opinion, and honestly, truthfully, objectively, it is terrible.

>>15572846
>there's no concept of sophia in philo sophia
Retard alert. As a surprise to absolutely nobody self-identifying Gnostics are fuckin' dumb.

>>15572866
>it's unpopular so it's bad
>also your opinion is objectively wrong
Now that's a midwit post if I've ever seen one.

>>15572884
You'd have to understand the context of the famous art piece I posted to at least reach some of the comprehension why you are being exposed as ignorant right now. Don't worry, my posts aren't about convincing -you.-

>>15572878
Go back to /x/, faggot.

>>15572777
>>15572866
>>15572899
Fucking sick digits for destroying brainlets though.

>>15572899
>y-you just don't get it this famous rennaissance painting is symbolic and stuff, I'm enlightened

>>15572910
Thanks.

>>15572911
Stay mad with that shit taste in art and literature, fag.

>thread starts off well with genuinely informative posts then devolves into retarded shitposting when the uneducated /x/fags arrive
At least we're past bump limit.

>>15572918
>>>/b/

What do neoplatonists think of Jesus Christ?

>>15572927
The illiterate gnostic LARPing /x/philes should lurk more post less./lit/ shouldnt have to prove they didnt read books they're attempting to argue about.

>>15572960
He was a nice boy.
>>15572961
It was funny though.

>>15572961
You're contributing to the shitposting with your own shitflinging, dumb fuck.

>>15572927
>at least less people will see how retarded I was
Pathetic

>>15572991
Who are you quoting?

>>15572996
(You)

>>15572977
>He was a nice boy.
That's it?

>>15573007
Evidently not, none of what you greentexted can be found in my post. You should familiarize yourself with this website before posting, friend

>>15572878
Wisdom as a hypostasis? More clearly traceable to Jewish scriptures. You're a retard.

>>15573022
His followers, sometimes not so much.

>>15573040
Except it isnt, the exact reference from Plato that it comes from is posted itt my illiterate friend.

>>15573063
Actual gnostic scholars like Couliano would disagree with you and they have evidence to back it up (Sophia = HKMH = Right hand of God that helped create the world, also referenced in Job). Lemme guess, you read On Beauty and now you're a theurgist and heckin epicrino Neoplatonist, right?

>>15573078
Because you clearly havent done even the most cursory reading, let's dumb it down for you.
>Before Plato, the term for "sound judgment, intelligence, practical wisdom" and so on, such qualities as are ascribed to the Seven Sages of Greece, was phronesis (φρόνησις, phrónēsis), from phren (φρήν, phrēn, lit.'"mind"')
>The term philosophia (φιλοσοφία, philosophía, lit.'"love of wisdom"') was primarily used after the time of Plato, following his teacher Socrates, though it has been said that Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher. This understanding of philosophia permeates Plato's dialogues, especially the Republic

>>15573122
>durr it uses same word so it same
Sophia as a hypostasis has nothing to do with the etymology of philosophy you fucking retard. Read a book.

>>15573048
Gnostics at least acknowledge Christ as a meaningful figure in their own cosmology
Neoplatonists don't give a shit?

>>15563969
t. Actual retard

>>15563969
Based.

>>15573040
>Wisdom as a hypostasis
Also known as Jesus Christ.

>>15573144
>read a book
>shows he clearly hasn't read any of the books he said he had

>>15573144
>Sophia as a hypostasis
No, they just call it Nous. Or Noesis.
Sophia is merely the path to it, as you'd have read if you knew how to.

>>15572827
The Monad is literally just a translation of 'The One'. You can't credit Gnostics for seeming cooler when in reality all of their aesthetic comes from the fact that the Greek concepts were simply transcribed instead of translated. 'The Demiurge' would sound lame if translated into the English 'craftsman'.

>>15573857
>craftsman
Or... carpenter. Jesus was the Word through which "all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" and a "carpenter" or demiurgos. The Gospel writers were cheeky cunts.

Can anyone explain to me why Sophia is supposed to be "good"? Maybe she is just like Demiurge but with more sophisticated taste in souls? How does gnostic philosophy deals with "demiurge all the way down" problem and possibility of multiple planes of suffering/soul harvest? And if I misunderstood something basic please explain where I am wrong friends.
>>15573896
>tfw I just realized The Thing is gnostic movie
mind blown