/lit/ - Literature

>>18443402
For a proper introduction to Platonic metaphysics, philosophy and it's historical background that isn't butchered by academic caricatures:
>Eric D. Perl - Thinking Being
>Algis Uždavinys - Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism
>Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie - The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library
>Lloyd P. Gerson - From Plato to Platonism

Middle Platonism:
>Stephen Gersh - Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism:
>Porphyry - Launching-Points to the Realm of Mind
>Llyod P. Gerson - Plotinus
>Gregory Shaw - Theurgy and the Soul
>Radek Chlup - Proclus
>Sara Rappe - Reading Neoplatonism

Christian Neoplatonism:
>Eric D. Perl - Theophany
>Eric D. Perl - Methexis
>Deirdre Carabine - The Unknown God
>Stephen Gersh - From Iamblichus to Eriugena
>Fran O'Rourke - Ps. Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas
>David Albertson - Mathematical Theologies
>Michael Allen - Ficino

Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is a great read too.

When reading Plato's Dialogues, a good practice would be to read them alongside Proclus' or Marsilio Ficino's commentaries.

Resources & notes:
If you can get the Loeb print of a text, opt for that. the Cooper transl. of Plato is fine.
Plotinus' Enneads + Commentary
>https://www.parmenides.com/publications/publications-plotinus.html
Proclus' Elements of Theology w/ Dodds’ commentary.
The Classics of Western Spirituality Series is good but with Ps. Dionysius, read the Rev. John Parker transl. instead:
>https://sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/index.htm
The only good print of Eriugena's Division of Nature:
>https://books.doaks.org/catalog/book/periphyseon
Wayne J. Hankey's publications:
>https://independent.academia.edu/WayneHankey
Gregory Shaw’s publications:
>https://stonehill.academia.edu/GregoryShaw
Intro to mathematical Platonism:
>https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2016/04/prelude-to-mathematical-neo-platonism_42.html?m=1
Ancient Commentaries on Aristotle
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaria_in_Aristotelem_Graeca

>>18320313
>Pre-socratic prereading to Plato
>>18325754
>A comprehensive introduction to Platonism
>>18314054
>Who does the Platonic tradition include?
>>18318678
>Essential Neoplatonic texts

>>18443402
Recommendations for start with Plotinus

>>18443402
platobros
at the end of the Damascius book there this schizo chart
what am I reading?

This book is pretty good for more Christian Platonism

>>18443402
I don't know shit about Platonism so whenever I look at these threads I think to myself "there is probably something extremely important and life-changing here", but I can't understand it since I lack the background in Platonism.

>>18443609
Try Return to Reality by Paul Tyson. It's a nice easy introduction to the Platonic worldview. Theophany by Eric Perl is also generally considered the best introduction to Neoplatonism

>>18443609
Platonism is THE entry point to philosophy, there’s nothing really stopping you from buying the complete works and just starting.

>>18443637
I actually have Plotinus's Enneads lying on my bed. It's just a pretty chunky book so I haven't gotten around to it. There's just a lot of Platonist stuff out there and I am not sure I have the background knowledge to frame it all into perspective.

>>18443609
read the death of socrates by romano guardini then you can proceed to the republic and timaeus

>>18443402
Plato was wrong about everything, as was every greek philosopher.

>>18443755
Oh hey another bug man who has the modernity brain worms

>>18443609
start with Eric Perl's Thinking Being if you feel the need for something handy to decode it before you jump in
>>18443629
Theophany was absolutely fantastic
Thinking Being and Methexis were just as good imo, albeit the latter was very niche
>>18443667
Jump straight to Enneads V.I and read that first tractate
its the best overview of the entire system you're gonna get from Plotinus
see:>>18443449

Ficino's commentaries on Plotinus have been partially translated and when they are complete, might be more accessible to read than the Enneads themselves but it'll be a long haul

>>18443590
O'Meara has done some really good work on Eriugena

>>18443755

The doctrine of the Forms in Aquinas

On the contrary, Augustine says (Octog. Tri. Quaest. qu. xlvi),"Such is the power inherent in ideas, that no one can be wise unless they are understood."

I answer that, It is necessary to suppose ideas in the divine mind. For the Greek word Idea is in Latin "forma." Hence by ideas are understood the forms of things, existing apart from the things themselves. Now the form of anything existing apart from the thing itself can be for one of two ends: either to be the type of that of which it is called the form, or to be the principle of the knowledge of that thing, inasmuch as the forms of things knowable are said to be in him who knows them. In either case we must suppose ideas, as is clear for the following reason:

In all things not generated by chance, the form must be the end of any generation whatsoever. But an agent does not act on account of the form, except in so far as the likeness of the form is in the agent, as may happen in two ways. For in some agents the form of the thing to be made pre-exists according to its natural being, as in those that act by their nature; as a man generates a man, or fire generates fire. Whereas in other agents (the form of the thing to be made pre-exists) according to intelligible being, as in those that act by the intellect; and thus the likeness of a house pre-exists in the mind of the builder. And this may be called the idea of the house, since the builder intends to build his house like to the form conceived in his mind. As then the world was not made by chance, but by God acting by His intellect, as will appear later (I:46:1, there must exist in the divine mind a form to the likeness of which the world was made. And in this the notion of an idea consists.

Reply to Objection 1. God does not understand things according to an idea existing outside Himself. Thus Aristotle (Metaph. ix) rejects the opinion of Plato, who held that ideas existed of themselves, and not in the intellect.

Reply to Objection 2. Although God knows Himself and all else by His own essence, yet His essence is the operative principle of all things, except of Himself. It has therefore the nature of an idea with respect to other things; though not with respect to Himself.

Reply to Objection 3. God is the similitude of all things according to His essence; therefore an idea in God is identical with His essence.

>>18444153
Based
Scholastic realism/exemplarism is pretty cool but Aquinas' commitment to Aristotle actually doesn't do him any favour in crafting his argument. St. Bonaventure had the most lucid account of the divine ideas.

>>18443402
A Prayer from the Mediaeval English Catholic Neoplatonist work, The Cloud of Unknowing

God, to whom all hearts are open,
and to whom all desires speak,
and from whom no secrets are hidden,
I beseech you to cleanse my heart's purpose
with the inexpressible gift of grace,
so that I may perfectly love you
and worthily praise you.
Amen.

>>18443402
I just came for the yumes

playdough is kewl

Reminder that the soul can't be proven, can't be detected in a lab, can't be defined, and can't be demonstrated.

>>18445536
So you think everyone is a p-zombie?

>>18445560
What's a p-zombie if there is no opposite?

Where is Perl's Methexis available online?

I hope you're all reading Butler. https://henadology.wordpress.com/

>>18445536
Read Plato’s Phaedrus, Aristotle’s Metaphysica, Plotinus’ fifth Ennead, Proclus’ Elements of Theology (the first 30 propositions are enough).

Not trolling, genuinely curious:
What would I stand to gain from reading the body of work attributed to and about Plato?
I could be more specific, but I'm curious to hear what others think with that simple prompt.

>>18445589
None of those prove, satisfactorily define, or demonstrate the soul.

Discord link is dead.

Why is platonism still relevant today? I'm not convinced by stuff like Tegmark's work. My main interest is mathematics but I take a more structuralist view. Anything that might sway me?

>>18443402
discord link is expired, also plato was debunked by lucretius(pbuh)

>>18445613
But they do. Did you get filtered? Read slower next time.

>>18445693
Books can't prove or demonstrate the soul. Thought can't prove or demonstrate the soul. If the soul could be satisfactorily defined, you would be able to share its definition right here and now.

>>18445646
It provides the most cohesive account of the whole of reality without running into the problems that other philosophies do where their metaphysics undermines their epistemology and ethics. It provides the correct framework for understanding the world, humanity and our place in tge cosmos, along with the correct underpinnings for ethics and virtue. It provides the fertile soil for theology.

The real question is why not be a Platonist?

>>18445536

>>18445727
Rev up those straw men, baby.

>>18445712
>Prove 1 + 1 = 2
>Ok heres the proof
>Books can't prove mathematical truth
Yo dumbo. Logical proof is as certain as you can ever get. The existence of the soul has been proven beyond all doubt. Golems who subscibe to debunked empiricist epistemologies can go graze in the fields of mediocrity.

>>18445613
I assume you have read them all. So we can discuss their content. What arguments there do you think fail to prove it and why?

>>18445734
Mathematics doesn't prove or demonstrate the soul.

>>18445742
Prove it

>>18445742
So if Soul doesn't exist do you believe there are only two primary hypostases? Nous and One? How does matter come directly from the Nous when the Nous is eternal? Without soul ypu lack vitality, movement and providence in the cosmos. Its a huge hole to fill.

>>18445736
See >>18445712

>>18445770
All logic is circular in the end and fails to prove or demonstrate anything.

>>18445788
You can't prove that soul can't be proven by mathematics with a 4chan post. Sorry bud looks like I win.

>>18445799
Both this and >>18445536 can be the case. So you don't really win.

>>18445824
Sorry you can't use logic to make your argument my position precludes it so I win. I've already apriori ruled out any means you could use to disprove the existence of the soul QED the soul exists.

>>18445845
>You can't prove there ISN'T a soul therefore there is a soul ;)
I'd tell you to look up what proof means and get a better grasp on that, but I think you're incapable.

>>18445858
Sorry you can't prove the existence of a burden of proof so I win.

>>18445788
Ok so you think there is no proof because there simply cannot be knowledge and not because of what the books present. Now you answer me if there is knowledge about the fact that there can’t be knowledge, and how this is shown in the arguments from those books.

>>18445858
To be fair you started it with your incredibly dumb claim that philosophical arguments don't constitute a reason for accepting the existence of the soul. You're either a fideist protestant or a bad faith atheist so might as well just shitpost back since you're not here to learn

>>18445871
Here's your reward for your victory

>>18445873
I think there's no proof because none has ever been given, simple as that.

>>18445896
>To be fair you started it with your incredibly dumb claim that philosophical arguments don't constitute a reason for accepting the existence of the soul.
That isn't what I claimed. Of course there are reasons for why people accept its existence, but reasons don't prove anything.

>>18445858
There can’t be a non-circular proof or taken for granted axiomatic basic truth, therefore you cannot affirm any kind of reasonable justification for any empirical fact. Thus anything we can know is from intuition to reason to empirical facts, thus our intelligibility of things lies outside anything material, thus the soul is proven since it is only from its own supra-empirical intuition that it and all other things including empirical proofs can be proved.

>>18445898
>Come to thread to shitpost
>Get your own shit thrown back in your face
>Angrily MS paint a trophy because you get mad at being held to your own standards
Yeah someones coping alright. Not me though.

>>18445911
See >>18445919

>>18445911
If you think deductive reasoning can't prove anything you've just completely destroyed your own epistemology, you know that right.

>>18445911
Reason does not prove anything. What does?

>>18445919
>>18445921
>>18445934
>still no proof, just endless whining and "muh loop holes so ur wrong" beating around the bush

>>18445939
>What does?
Repeated verification in a reliable lab is the closest we can get and the only thing worth considering as proof because of that.

>>18445960
>repeated
So we need a specific repetition of verifications. You have two options: indefinite repetition or a specific number.
In the first case you don’t have proof until you finish all indefinite repetitions and can’t have any proof indefinitely.
In the second you need to establish a specific number. What is the number and the measure of its establishing.

>Verification
You mean perceptual verification? You could just reread this post >>18445919. But in any case what is the measure of establishment and the apodictic ground of the validty of perceptual verification? How do you prove empirical validity empirically?

>>18445960
>>18445993
Also
>reliable
Lmao you are trolling but anyhow the same said above is much more obvious here

>only thing worth considering as proof because of that
So repeated verification in a reliable lab is the closest we can get and the only thing worth of proof because repeated verification in a reliable lab is the closest we can get [because of that]?

You discarded circular logic (redundancy for you anyway) in this post of yours: >>18445788. What makes it valid now?

>>18445993
>>18446003
>more beating around the bush

I said "closest we can get" because repeated verification does not guarantee that it will always verify in the future. However, repeated verification in a reliable lab gives us the greatest assurance of a proof for the past and present as is possible. What qualifies as repetition and reliability depends on what it is being tested, but you understand what these concepts are.

You can't verify the soul even once in any lab, so you don't have anything we would consider a proof for the soul. That's all there is to it.

>>18446065
>demanding proof
>resorting to closes we can get
You are not talking about proof and certainty anymore. In this way all you are spouting is uncertainty. This uncertainty is ubiquitous and you can be certain of anything, not even of your doubting anything (despite the cartesian reduction being apodictic and thus showing what I told you here >>18445919, with all its consequences).

>repeated verification does not guarantee that it will always verify in the future.
It does because this is what repetition implies. Unless you establish a valid limit and the measure of such validity as I said above.

>repeated verification in a reliable lab gives us the greatest assurance of a proof
Reread my previous posts. I will not comment on repetition again, and on verification (last time I repeat myself): ''what is the measure of establishment and the apodictic ground of the validty of perceptual verification? How do you prove empirical validity empirically?''.

>What qualifies as repetition and reliability depends on what it is being tested, but you understand what these concepts are.
There is no qualification of repetition, it is not a matter of qualitative measure, but quantitative, which is what is predicated of repetition.

>You can't verify the soul even once in a lab
You can verify the soul by the simple apodicticity of its intuition and its validity for any kind of verification and demonstration, including lab verifications, as said here >>18445919. Read again.

>>18446192
>It does because this is what repetition implies.
Wrong.

>You can verify the soul by the simple apodicticity of its intuition and its validity for any kind of verification and demonstration
Define it then and then share with me the published papers verifying it.

>>18445601
You have soulless utilitarian mentality, "what do i gain" holy fuck its so cringe. The entire worldview breaks down upon mere questioning, if it is incessant enough. Go suck Big Yud's cock.

>>18443402
I've only read Death of Socrates. It made me cry, it's a good story and no matter how much we think we know about death and dying, we're still going to cry when our bros go.

Should I give Republic a go next?

>>18446214
>Wrong
You are saying repetition does not implie it will repeat itself. That is why I said this was either the case or yous hould set a specific valid limit and its justification.

>Define it then and then share with me the published papers verifying it.
See:
>>18445589
>>18445919

>>18446340
you sound like a faggot

>>18446504
I'm saying that repetition can only be observed in the present and within the context of the known past. If you can't figure out what I'm saying then you're too stupid to continue this conversation with me.

>can't define it
>shares no papers

>>18446533
Woah, how chad of you. But aren't you supposed to be giving onlyfans whores money this time of the day?

>>18446549
>I'm saying that repetition can only be observed in the present and within the context of the known past.
And insofar as it concerns repetition, the present can only be attested in the future repetition, serving as the posterior context of the known past. And this indeterminately until you posit a limit.

How much more will you try to show you can be more stupid? Are you trying to prove how your retardation has no limits? Or are you just being dishonest as always?

Am I gonna get filtered hard if I attempt to tackle the Hermetica while having only read a couple of Plato's dialogues?
Should I spend years reading and analyzing all the dialogues instead of just reading the ones marked with ⦾ in the OP and moving on?

>>18443402
>tfw no eru gf

>>18446803
>still no definition or papers

>>18447662
>still with the rampant cope

>>18443402
So how many of yous are Satanists? Or Luciferians / light-worshippers if you prefer that term?

>>18445788
Logic is used to define the conditions of truth that validate or falsify your statement, desu

>>18445960
Why do you accept truths that haven't been verified in a lab then?

>>18448274
>truth
What is that?

>>18443402
>>>/his/
Same as tradfags.

>>18448307
back to genre fiction

>>18443673
>death of socrates
Where can I find this?

>>18448568
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.77775/page/n7/mode/2up

>>18445581
zlibrary
>>18445536
its not a physical substance
It's definition is the principle of animation cf. Aristotle's De Anima.
It can be demonstrated by the mere observation that certain objects have the capacity of motion that isn't purely from extrinsic forces.
The real question is about its immateriality which only comes about with the intellective soul, which we possess, and can be demonstrated as follows:

In St. Augustine's book On the Trinity, he basicallt argues for the immateriality of the intellective soul this way:
1. The mind knows itself with certainty.

2. But a thing is known only when its essence is known.

3. So the mind knows its own essence with certainty.

4. But the mind is not certain that it is the brain, or atoms, or an arrangement of flesh, or anything else that is material.

5. So it is not part of the essence of the mind to be the brain, or atoms, or an arrangement of flesh, or anything else that is material.
Or more simply:

1. The mind knows itself directly, without the mediation of a mental image or any other representation.

2. But the mind knows material things only via the mediation of a mental image or some other representation.

3. So, the mind is not a material thing.

In defense of premise 1, Augustine would presumably say that if we tried to deny it, then we would be faced with the possibility of skepticism about the mind’s own existence. Yet it is a performative contradiction to deny that you are thinking. Such skepticism is impossible. So we must affirm premise 1.

Oh and don't for get that if your intellective soul is immaterial, by not being material it is not subject to time and therefore it cannot decay.

It is immortal. By being immortal it already has a vestigial share in divinity.
To quote Plotinus:

"The Soul once seen to be thus precious, thus divine, you may hold the faith that by its possession you are already nearing God: in the strength of this power make upwards towards Him: at no great distance you must attain: there is not much between."

>>18446364
No, see OP
Republic is one of the much later ones to read but I guess you could casually read it whenever but to properly read it, you should at least do Alcibiades I, Protagoras/Gorgias, Theaetetus, Symopsium and Phaedrus before it

>>18445716
No books to recommend?

>>18449072
Second post has a list of book recommendations. Read the thread before asking.

>>18449186
Then you've failed to convince me.

>>18445536
And that's a good thing.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11340279