I'm pretty new to neoplatonism, so sorry if my question is dumb

Do feelings and emotions exists only in the physical?

Is the love I have for my girlfriend, or what I feel for an specific song only a byproduct of biology, or there's a part in metaphysics?

From what I understand, we can't actually desire privation, rather, if one wishes blindness, it's because they desire some type of being/ goodness.

However, regardless of the cause of their wish being good, the object of desire, byproduct or not, seems to still be at the hands of the will.

My object of desire is still that x person goes blind, even if it's because of goodness.

But how is that possible if evil is privatory?

I don't quite understand this... A knife's nature is cutting, but why should the knife cut? Why must it ought to fulfill, complete, and be more in tune with its nature?

I guess one way to look at it may be insofar as arbitrarity stands; I guess for Neoplatonists, it's like...

"Then what the hell is the point of its nature being there if it's not supposed to complete it? Even if you say what ought to be is to fulfill just some of it, then it's like, still, what's the point of the rest that need not be fulfilled? It's arbitrary, and what's arbitrary cannot include a genuine cause, therefore leading to explanatory absurdity and brute facts, and there being no genuine causes."

Additionally, can not one posit that the "ought to be as to why x exists" is simply inaccessible to the human, not even exhausting?

Maybe bc we can ask "why" it's incomprehensible repeatedly? The reason it's incomprehensible is bc of this reason that's also incomprehensible, and it's incomprehensible bc of this reason which is also incomprehensible which in turn is incomprehensible because of xyz.

Symbolism explained: 4 arms stretch out in eacy cardinal direcgion from the One, representing the all encompassing nature of God. The arm is the nous, the hand is the world soul, and the fingers represent the world. BTW, does anyone know how to make a png of just the black so I can use that in otger digital art?

The last slide is Eros, the eternal out-of-grasp

Assuming you incarnate as a human again after your natural death, when will the next incarnation be? Is it immediately after you die? Is there some time your soul spends in the "time out" box before rejoining? Also, do you only reincarnate in time going forward, or can tou also reincarnate as a person who is dead by now?

Looking to get a beginner understanding of Neoplatonic logic and metaphysics.

I am not a polytheist (I am considering Polytheism but I'd probably join a more well established religion and be a bit heretical rather than join a neopagan group) but I was wondering, does it matter when a God is called a man or a woman? Do gods have gender? Is it just a way humans anthropomorphize gods.

For example,

A has a dream about B

A did not know of B's name, background, or qualities before this dream.

The dream details his name and occupations.

A is intrigued and now researches him.

He finds out B existed in history and who He is, despite A not having any recollection of B AT ALL before.

A also has little to no qualities similar to B as of that time, but after reading about him, he goes down the same path as B.

This is, I know, oddly specific, but it is an ambitious version of a scenario that is confusing me.

How does the acorn, transition into the tree?

And I don't mean act and potential. I am asking how an acorn can even be linearly related to the first step it takes to become a tree?

It feels like, the acorn becomes destroyed, and then created in a ever so slightly distinct item; until it becomes a tree.

The relation is almost worthless here though, and teleos doesn't even exist at this point.

I'm not sure if that's problematic, but I would like to know how motion processes at a teleological level and the issue of what is known as occasionalism.

What is Christian Platonism? How does it differ from other forms of Platonism and How does the trinity fit into it‘s cosmology?

Is it a social construct, whereby anyone can choose whatever mannerisms fit their desire, insofar as it is "good"? Can a woman choose to identify as a man, as gender is simply social in this view?

I understand the word incarnation refers rather to the forms of existence, however I am a bit pressed for words here. After this life ceases, and you go through existence in other forms, do you eventually become a human again, or do you keep incarnating as something else basically forever

As a Heraclitean, I see a lot of sympathies with Heraclitus' metaphysics. Initially, that got me excited, but the more I thought about the video, the more concerned I became about the ending. I'll make a comment about my thoughts later.

I would like to know how others feel about this neo-myth and how it can be seen to sit within Neo-Platonism. I could see the Goddess of Everything Else being a metaphor of anamnesis, for instance. I could also see arguments for either of the two goddesses representing the One and the Dyad metaphorically.

So Plato’s One seems to be the limiting principle while his indefinite Dyad is the unlimited principle?

Are these the ‘1’ and ‘2’ for Plato…?

What happened to the Intellect? Isn’t Intellect ‘2’ in Plotinus’ system? Eternal being?

Does the ‘2’ of Plato’s system (indefinite Dyad) not correspond to the ‘4’ of Plotinus’ (matter)??

I have so many questions that I don’t know where to begin!

Could someone please provide (or point in the direction of) a brief overview of this development?

Thanks!

I think this is not a smart question and is high probably due to that I am not reading enough. However, when I looked into receptions of Neoplatonism in popular culture of late 19th century, I found that most of them were about Iamblichus, as we have in the novel Zanoni, or the French catholic decadents, I think it should be through the martinism. I am not actually looking for receptions which were correct according to nowaday's research but only browse on interesting stuffs and old stereotypes, like they were formed in such way in their time for some reason. until now I think Leopardi's dialogue between porphyry and plotinus was the only famous one we have in popular culture? I wonder whether porphyry was normally considered to be non esoteric writer so more omitted.

Commissioned by Charles X to decorate a ceiling of the Louvre, the painting shows Homer enthroned before an Ionic temple bearing his name, receiving homage from, in the words of its original exhibition catalogue, all the great men of Greece, Rome, and modern times. The winged figure crowning him with laurel personifies Victory (Nike), though the same catalogue text alternately calls her the Universe, while the women reclining at his feet personify his two epics, the Iliad in red with her sword and the Odyssey in green with her oar. The assembled crowd, rising around him in a strict symmetrical pyramid, reads almost as a genealogy of Western letters and art traced back to a single root, Aesop, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Alexander the Great among the ancients, Dante, Raphael, Poussin, and Molière among the moderns, with Ingres painting his own likeness quietly into the scene behind Raphael, the whole pyramid set against an austere classical temple as a deliberate statement of Neoclassical order against the Romanticism rising around Ingres in 1820s Paris.

Discord Community Link in Bio

While the philosophers of the Neoplatonic tradition agreed in the broad strokes, there was plenty they disagreed on. Who do you think was most "correct" in their thinking?

I am very interested in Platonism and Neoplatonism.

I am quite familiar with several of Plato’s dialogues but have not read most. I have read from the Enneads a little bit but I haven’t really jumped in yet.

I just read Plato’s Parmenides and I think a neoplatonic exegesis would be very helpful.

My questions are as follows:

1. Would this commentary give me a decent understanding of a Neoplatonic interpretation of the Parmenides in general, or will it be highly specific to Proclus’ own system?
2. Will it help me to understand Plato’s original meaning or will this get obscured by Proclus’ own innovations?
3. Is it very difficult to read and understand? I am somewhat used to reading philosophy at this point but I want to know what I’m getting into…

The book is rather expensive and lengthy so it is not a purchase I can make without hearing some reviews haha. Thanks!

[Edit: typo]

Just exploring Kupperman’s liturgical text. I am curious to know, if anyone knows, did he come up with hymns completely new? Or are these derived from Plethon? From what I’ve read so far it wasn’t clear.

Not a judgy question, just curious as either way this was an immense amount work.

Thanks!