The "One" and "God"
Plotinus describes his concept of "the One" as follows:
There is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. His "One" cannot be any existing thing, nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents". His "One" concept encompassed thinker and object. Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action - ergon - to the One. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer potentiality without which nothing could exist. As Plotinus explains:
"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God."
The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world, but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process.
The world is formed by three hypostasis - the fundamental substance of existence -:
The One;
The Intellect;
The Soul;
It seems to me that the idea presented and described by Plotinus, is less about a divine figure that creates existence, but rather an abstraction of the creation of the world from a perfect point before existence, from which existence arose. In philosophical discussions, it seems to me that whenever Plotinus is quoted, the perception of his philosophy is that he sought answers in religion, in faith; however, reading his works, the distinction between God and the One is noticeable.
Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute?
There is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. His "One" cannot be any existing thing, nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents". His "One" concept encompassed thinker and object. Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action - ergon - to the One. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer potentiality without which nothing could exist. As Plotinus explains:
"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God."
The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world, but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process.
The world is formed by three hypostasis - the fundamental substance of existence -:
The One;
The Intellect;
The Soul;
It seems to me that the idea presented and described by Plotinus, is less about a divine figure that creates existence, but rather an abstraction of the creation of the world from a perfect point before existence, from which existence arose. In philosophical discussions, it seems to me that whenever Plotinus is quoted, the perception of his philosophy is that he sought answers in religion, in faith; however, reading his works, the distinction between God and the One is noticeable.
Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute?
Comments (152)
I suppose one place to start would be, what is the meaning of absolute? In mathematics (which is closely related to Platonism/Metaphysics), you have Cantor's Absolute. Then of course you have other philosophical ideas that perhaps are a bit more intriguing relative to consciousness:
In any case, I'm not sure we can escape the metaphysical elements...
My personal worldview, Enformationism, also inferred a necessary abstract hypothetical world creator from the available evidence of the physical & metaphysical creation. Such a postulate is logically necessary because the Big Bang theory*1 describes an effect of some unknown prior cause.
I call that non-personal a priori force or power by various names, depending on the context. In an ontological discussion about the question of basic existence vs non-existence, I label the timeless power-to-be-and-to-become as "BEING". This concept is similar in some ways to Plotinus' "The One", which I sometimes call "ALL", or "The Whole". As a creative force, it is also akin to Plato's concept of LOGOS, in the sense of divine Reason, which was responsible for organizing Chaos into the living organism we call home : our physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) universe.
Since this postulated First Cause, "from which existence arose", is beyond the realm of empirical evidence, we can only project current circumstantial evidence back into the time before time, That's merely an extension of the logic by which Cosmologists inferred from the current expansion of space & time that all matter was originally impossibly condensed into a point of pure potential -- that I liken to a computer program. Unfortunately, most philosophical descendants of Abraham identify that Cause with the God of the Bible or Koran or Book of Mormon. But I think of it as more akin to the abstract Brahman (ultimate reality) of Hindu philosophy. However, a more up-to-date name for the creator of our information processing world may be The Programmer. :nerd:
*1. the Singularity, "perfect point", was like a cue ball struck by the cue stick (action) aimed & manipulated by an intentional pool shooter. The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. Their movements may seem random, but we can trace cause & effect back to a single input of force
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I think it's due to a physical bias in Science, the belief system of Materialism, which is blind to the power of Mind (Culture, Memes) to influence the material world. I'm not talking about spoon-bending Psychokinesis, but about Energy. Matter is a form of Energy, which in turn is a form of metaphysical EnFormAction (causal information). And this non-physical "non-sense" is derived by a chain of logic in the Enformationism thesis. :cool:
Really good video. Thanks.
If both the One and God are concepts of the absolute, in fact, it is understandable that they are confused and used interchangeably by most people. But the point is that the One is almost like an immutable and "objecty" concept - for lack of better terms -, while to God, a certain personality is commonly applied to this transcendental figure.
If both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other?
Good stuff. The question that may be relevant, is whether the " arrow of time " incorporates the concept of infinity. The reason I think we would want to somehow reconcile that is because in cosmology infinity seems to be associated with the absolute (Cantor's Absolute).
Interesting, if you'd like, please dm me. I'm really curious about it.
Quoting Gnomon
The world then would be made of two existences? The physical (material) and the metaphysical (mental)? Correct me if I'm getting it wrong.
Quoting Gnomon
What?
Quoting Gnomon
This intrigues me, since the concepts are practically identical, however, one of them is evidenced by scientific studies, while the other is founded on metaphysical search. Perhaps the Big Bang is just the material evidence of the One? I cannot say.
Quoting Gnomon
I can agree with that. I feel that we are leaving aside one of the truths of this existence for the sake of the material. Perhaps one needs the other - Metaphysical and Material -?
I'm not sure this will answer the question but it may be one starting point (among others). Consider mathematical truths being both objective truth and abstract metaphysical truth. Whether it's the underlying laws of gravity or an engineering formula that describes a structural beam, both are related to objective abstract truth's.
Are those truth's metaphysical? Well yes they are because they describe physical things in a non-physical way.
Or in cosmology, as it relates to consciousness, how does one perceive time itself? The feeling of time passing surely is not exclusive to physical phenomenon. We can see many objects changing, but can we see our own perceptions of time changing(?). Whether it's time-zone travel, relatively, or time passing quickly when you're busy, these things are not physical. Perceptions are both physical and metaphysical.
It may be a good time for Metaphysician Undercoverer to elucidate his theories on essences... . Is the concept of the Absolute some sort of essence from physical existence, independent, like mathematics?
You'd have to prove that simplicity is possible, that it exists, and that it is greater than matter
Enformationism :
[i]As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Quoting Gus Lamarch
No. The unitary world is a composite of physical and metaphysical Information. This won't make sense without a grasp of the Enformationism thesis. But it's similar to Spinoza's "Single Substance" concept of God. Modern science gradually grudgingly coming to the conclusion that everything in our world is a form of Causal Information.
Substance Monism : The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Quoting Gus Lamarch
The Programmer : The notion that our world is a mathematical Program processing information is a novel notion that is gaining traction in Physics and Cosmology.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Actually, the BB is a hypothesis. The physical world that emerged from that postulated creative act is the only "material evidence" of a Creator.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Yes. Modern Science began as a revolt against the dominant metaphysical myths (Theology) of medieval Catholicism. But they inadvertently threw out the metaphysical baby (Mind) with the mythical bathwater (man-made dogma). Even most modern philosophers are uncomfortable with discussing non-empirical metaphysical notions. However, by "metaphysics" I don't mean magic or ghosts or theology, but the important non-physical aspects of Reality : Concepts, Ideas, Theories, Opinions, Beliefs. etc :cool:
Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
This sounds like a cult to me, something that might come out of Scientology. I mean.... what?
For the purpose of communication with non-philosophers, I sometimes use the term "G*D" with an asterisk to indicate an abstract "deity" as opposed to the traditional anthro-morphic white-bearded prayer-answering Santa Claus king in heaven. Unfortunately, most of them are not interested in the "god of the philosophers" : an unrevealed hypothetical abstract absolute explanation for our actual physical relative existence. :smile:
Fear not! There's no cult. There's only little old me. It's a personal philosophical non-religious worldview, based on modern science and reason, not on ancient scriptures and emotions. What's your worldview? :smile:
That is a really good question. How could we test and visualize this through the physical-material world? Perhaps through a new theory that covers both the metaphysical and the physical? And if it is something like Plotinus' abstraction, that existence arose from it, however, without the direct and indirect intention of it, how could we conceptualize it being that Plotinus already stated:
"Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."
Quoting 3017amen
@Metaphysician Undercover - show yourself!
Oh, it is an attempt to stitch together scientific theory, with metaphysical abstraction. That's It? If so, it is really interesting, and in my view, necessary for an eventual intellectual revolution.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm going to read it, thank you.
Quoting Gnomon
The point is that if it is the concept of the "One" of Plotinus, it makes no sense to apply the notion of "God" to him because the creation of existence was not the result of his direct or indirect intention. The absolute of the One caused existence in a chain reaction of absolute - or perfections - smaller in scale. The One is not a God in the common sense.
Quoting Gnomon
I agree completely.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, the evolution of philosophy and science is increasingly proving that something is missing from the equation in relation to everything. My view is that metaphysics - as you have already said, concepts, abstractions, ideas, etc ... - is being left out in favor of a more intrisicaly causal perceptive answer.
Who needs Occam's, right? I ... don't even ... :zip: :roll: :shade:
You're welcome Gus!
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Through simple engineering formulas for say the design of a building, aircraft, xcetera, as well as computing the laws of gravity, relativity, xcetera.
Is that what you mean?
Clearly, "the absolute" is an ambiguous concept. Therefore the way that one relates to absolution is dependent on one's perspective. Notice that "absolution" means to be absolved, released from all guilt. But to be absolved requires that one first recognize one's sins. In Catholicism this is the process of confession and forgiveness.
In the op it appears like you seek to separate "the absolute" from any possible creative activity, rendering it complete distinct from the process of absolution. Then you propose an emanation, through which the perfect (absolute) gives birth to the less perfect, and you seek to absolve the perfect (absolute) from responsibility for this act of creating something less than perfect, by removing intention from this act. Then emanation is not a willing act of the perfect (absolute) from which things emanate, (the absolute being purely potential instead) but an act of the emanating things themselves, such that the imperfect things are responsible for their own imperfections, rather than the Creator being responsible for the imperfections. This circumvents the act of forgiveness, because the more perfect being, from which the less perfect emanates in a natural procession, is denied the capacity to produce something more perfect than itself, so that the imperfections are already given by an implied priority.
Because all of them are fuzzy
MU!
Could that suggest that the unity of opposites principle is the energy/informational source of the emanate?
Reminds me of Taoism - the Tao that can be named is not the Tao.
I thought the absolute one represented infinity?
Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none.
I'm not following that TMF, what do you mean by none?
Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus proclaimed that God is infinite, and that they were primarily concerned to demonstrate that he is not limited in any way.
in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist?
Gus!
Have you given any further thought to the video and how something that's absolute wouldn't require any outside/external data?
Because they’re all equally inapplicable. Your Perfection, for instance, is not applicable to **The One** because in order for it to be perfect there would need to be something imperfect to compare it to. It’s equally valid to claim that the almighty One is imperfect.
The Enformationism thesis is my contribution to the current desire among thoughtful people of good will, to reconcile the metaphysics of Religion with the physics of Science. After the Enlightenment era, the "miracles" of empirical Science gained more & influence over the public mind, even as the "miracles" of ancient Religion faded away. Hence those once-dominant institutions were placed on the defensive. But since the 1960s, the conflict between worldviews of Spirit & Matter has been escalating. Originally, the combat was simply Christianity versus Humanism. But the 60s brought Eastern & Pagan religious ideas into the mix, and resulted in the peace & love attitude of New Age. Since then, fundamentalist Christians declared war on both Scientific and New Age worldviews. In reaction to that politicization of religion, the Four Horsemen of Atheism fired back with Reason vs Emotion. Yet, I think we need both sides of human nature to be whole : Critical Thinking and Innate Feelings.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Very few people have actually read the full thesis, so they get an incomplete understanding of what it means for both religion and science. The theory began with the scientific insight that everything in our world is a form of Information (energy & matter & mind). But the implication of that notion had philosophical and religious implications, that I'm still working out.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Yes. Philo's "One" is more like Plato's "Logos" : spiritual but not personal. Ancient people had no concept of Energy, so they attributed all natural effects to intentional causes, and imagined those invisible powers in human form. Descendants of the Hebrews eventually abandoned their own history of personal gods (Yahewh was originally a weather god slinging thunderbolts), in favor of the more abstract notion of YHWH who was formless, eternal, and absolute. But the human desire for gods in familiar form, caused idolatry to continue even among the Jews. Later, their Christian descendants, began to imagine the human Jewish Messiah as the super-human Christ, and eventually fragmented the One God of Monotheism into a Polytheistic pantheon : Father, Mother, Son, Holy-Spirit, and a panoply of Saints. So, it's obvious that an abstract absolute unitary notion of deity does not appeal to the average person. That's why I call my hypothetical Enformer by the ambiguous name G*D : it's the "god of the philosophers".
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Since I am no longer religious, in any conventional sense, I could accept the Agnostic view of a godless world without any emotional affect or social censure . But, the theory of science-based Enformationism logically requires a First Cause with the creative power to Enform, and the mental intention to create a physical world. So, the thesis describes How the material world evolved from the immaterial Information (program) in the Singularity via series of Phase Transitions --- disorderly random changes (heuristic search) directed by intentional natural selection (algorithms) . But it does not reveal Why this abode of sentient creatures is characterized by both Good & Evil, both Positive & Negative, both Pleasure & Pain, both Cooperation & Competition, both Peace & Conflict. The tribal God of Abraham is often lauded as a loving Father, but is also described as commanding Old Testament genocides, and of planning a post-apocalyptic hell-fire for infidels. Why, why, why???
That's why the BothAnd Blog continues to search for answers to ultimate Why questions. :nerd:
BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html
:lol: :up:
On a serious note, I've always been drawn to the ineffable. I'm one of those people who enjoy looking up at the night sky filled with twinkling stars, green forests shrouded in mist, the sandy landscape of deserts, the ebb and flow of the tides on the shores, and so on. These experiences, in a manner of speaking, get my juices flowing. I feel the same emotions when I'm face to face with the ineffable although I must confess most occasions that involved someone trying to, as someone once put it, eff the ineffable have, on the whole, been instances of beating around the bush - what else can be done? Nonetheless, sometimes, and such times are rare, I find myself catching fleeting, nebulose glimpses of what I suppose are inexpressibles, ineffables. Quite possibly this has more to do with the merits of beating around the bush than anything substantive about so-called ineffables.
My remarks pertain to one specific idea, the so-called One of Plotinus. The absence of any attribute is the very definition of nothing. The One is, if it is, as claimed, devoid of any and all attributes, identical in that sense to nothing. If Plotinus has a something else on his mind when he provides this description of the One, he needs to show how the One isn't nothing.
But the point is that if the absolute of existence - if it exists - can be evidenced - by experiment or theories - it would be just a version of it with deficiency, because we would making it "Be".
Quoting TheMadFool
Plotinus says that the One is "beyond all attributes". Therefore, it contains something that is seen as an attribute and is the attribute. Quoting Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one." What attribute is this, that can be seer and seen, is beyond our contemporary metaphysical knowledge - if by chance, the One exists -.
Quoting TheMadFool
It must contain something, however, in the act of trying to abstract this "something beyond all attributes" we - according to Plotinus - have already introduced defects, simply because we are in and with existence.
Quoting 3017amen
I would still add the argument that because Men is finite, he tends to seek the absolute - infinite - to comfort himself that he is bound to existence.
Quoting 3017amen
I am stuck with the reflection that:
"The One - or absolute - is something that "transcends" existence, however, through the use of language - which is a creation of a Being attached to existence; Men - this concept cannot be truly achieved, as it is something beyond our borders - here, I speak of our finitude - and it cannot be fully expressed either, since, for being absolute, infinity would be necessary to conceive it."
The only solution I see for this question is one where we "transcend" the boundaries of language. But still, we would be conceptualizing a flawed idea, as we still would "Be".
The One;
We are knowledgeable of the One;
As we Are, our knowledge of the One is deficient;
But through our deficient knowledge of the One, we know that it Is in some "higher" Existence (?) - Meaning (?) Purpose (?) Idea (?);
Next step?
Plotinus wasn't christian, and his ideas - the three hypostasis of the world: One, Intellect and the Soul - were practically robbed by Christian theology and philosophy.
Nietzsche already said that we should reconcile these two - Apollinian and Dionysian -:
"Much will have been gained for humanity once we have succeeded in apprehending directly-rather than merely ascertaining-that Men owes its continuous evolution to the Apollinian- Dionysian duality, even as the propagation of the species depends on the duality of the sexes, their constant conflicts and periodic acts of reconciliation."
Quoting Gnomon
As I always say:
"As the romans had a pantheon of Gods, we, in the contemporary world, have a pantheon of interpretations of God."
Quoting Gnomon
Even though I may disagree with you in some cases, I really do support that you should publish this eventually. We need revolutionary thinkers who are not afraid to express themselves.
High is relative to low, meaning is relative to meaningless, purpose is relative to purposelessness, but The One is a cool idea.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Experience it.
:up: :ok:
Plotinus, if you're reporting his views accurately and I'm sure you are, seems to be attempting to describe something beyond the reach of ordinary language. To be fair it must be pointed out that we're all familiar with ineffables with, that have, "attributes" - emotions. Emotions are felt and have distinct qualities to them which may be construed to be their attributes but a quick glance of the dictionary reveals that these distinct qualities ("attributes") don't figure in their definitions at all - that lexicographers are beating around the bush in their attempts to define emotions is patently clear. Could it be then that Plotinus' One has more to do with our emotional, limbic system rather than our rational, prefrontal cortex? All this reminds me of qualia and its significance to consciousness.
Another thing is the universe taken as a whole exhibits an odd behavior when we look at its attributes. Remember that it contains everything there is and if so, attribute-wise, it's a certain color and also not that color, it's in a certain physical state and also not in that state, etc. which should immediately make you think of yin-yang. Every attribute that the universe can be thought to possess, the universe also possesses the exact opposite attribute. These pairs of opposite attributes cancel each other out to the point that no attribute that can be ascribed to the universe remains and, drumroll please ( :joke: ) , we end up with a universe that is, as Plotinus said, "beyond all attributes".
Further, Wittgenstein's language game theory seems germane to Plotinus' One. Imagine I'm looking for an attribute that unifies all objects in the universe. I choose the attribute solid and then I begin to run the thread of solidness through objects in the universe - car, stone, bone, etc. - but the moment I encounter a liquid or a gas, I'd have to stop and choose another attribute but the same thing will happen with this attribute too. To make the long story short, there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. Any attempt to define the universe in terms of attributes is doomed to fail ergo, the One, the universe, is "beyond all attributes".
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Read above.
There are no boundaries intrinsic to language, it is inherently boundless. That language consists of boundaries is the notion which Wittgenstein reveals as false in his Philosophical Investigations. The evidence which serves as proof of this fact, is the language which we call mathematics. The concept of "infinite" allows us to apply that language (mathematics) to absolutely anything, boundlessly. The language itself clearly is not limited, and as Wittgenstein describes, boundaries are created for particular purposes.
It makes no sense to talk about something as "ineffable" because to label it as ineffable is already to say something about it. Therefore to talk about the ineffable is just a ridiculous form of hypocrisy, a self contradicting action of doing exactly what one says can't be done, merely by saying it.
There is however a paradox which arises if we apprehend language as a thing, and try to describe it with language. We thereby attempt to measure the boundless, and clearly this is a mistake, to attempt to measure the boundless, or use language to describe language. The way to avoid this paradox may be to recognize that language is not a thing, it is a relationship, and maintain a separation of categories between things and relationships, the former being inherently bounded, the latter being intrinsically boundless.
If we do this, we now have a very imposing problem. How can we understand relationships if we cannot talk about them? We talk about things, but we do not talk about relationships, because I have categorized a relationship as something other than a thing and I have categorized things as what we talk about. I haven't truly said that there is something (relationships) which cannot be talked about (they are ineffable), I have said that relationships are not things, and things are what we talk about. The question is, how do we apply language toward understanding relationships if it improper to say that we talk about relationships?
Obviously I disagree. Using language is a matter of establishing boundaries and limits for intended purposes, as is evident with definitions imposed for the purpose of logical proceedings. However, you are referring to "language itself", which means that you have proposed a separation between the act of using, for purpose and intention, and the thing being used, language. You have, therefore, implied a separation between the thing, language (words or symbols), and the associated meaning. And, it is evident that meaning is a feature of the usage, which is the establishing of boundaries, not the thing being used, the language itself.
Therefore your assumption that "language itself is all about bounds and boundaries as limits that establish first the possibility of meaning, and then the particular meaning" is very confused. The "possibility of meaning" is quite distinct from "the particular meaning". The possibility of meaning is provided for by "language itself" (symbols and words), and is boundless, as evident from the infinite possibilities of mathematical language, infinity. And, "the particular meaning" is established by the particular instances of use, the purpose or intention.
Quoting tim wood
This is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense to refer to something as ineffable, because this is hypocrisy, to insist that something can't be done, while actually doing it with the act of saying that it can't be done. See, language itself is not actually bounded, we create boundaries with our particular instances of use. And in this case we are creating a boundary which being violated by the very act which is supposed to be making the boundary (self-contradiction).
The paradox is not properly dealt with in this way though. It is only by assuming that "ineffable" as a word, or symbol, can only be used in a restricted way (has boundaries, or a set meaning), that allows me to say that if I use it in this particular way, it is hypocrisy (to go outside those boundaries). So there is a matter of uncertainty which is exposed, as to what is actually bounded, the use, or the thing being used.
Quoting tim wood
Right, we now approach the opposite way. Since you have now designated that language is a thing, instead of my prior proposition, that language is a relationship, we see that language itself is what is bounded, and the use of language is unbounded. But it's all just a matter of how you define "language". Is it a thing, such as a symbol or word, or is it the use of words or symbols. Inverting these two will invert one's understanding of which is bounded and which is not bounded.
- Can we define god?
- can we define mathematics, philosophy, science?
- can we define language?
- can we define thought?
All these are derivatives that could only get off the ground as social groupthinks because they were created using language; and they elude defition only because their mother is language, which is -- basically -- nothing. Language is to the intellect as paper is to the value of paper money, or as condoms are to love, or as laughtracks in American sitcoms are to humour.
Could you clarify how you are using the word object here.
E.g., Are you referring to physical objects - chairs, planets? Are you going more granular down to atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles? Photons? etc.
Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into.
Interesting that you should bring up atoms but at that scale too there's no single unifying attribute. In my humble opinion, if there's a word that has as its extension all that the universe contains, it's the word "thing". Everything is a thing. Try to define "thing" and all you get is a sentence that says a "thing" is anything that can possess an attribute and we're back to square one for the reason that all attributes come in pairs of opposites.
Could you really experience something absolute, or just your deficient version of it in existence?
My question is about how to abstract the One, without the deficiencies caused by our finitude. I came to the thinking that we could arrive at the conception of the One, through the division of concepts. - Ex: We would (?) describe (?) part (?) of the One by mathematics, another part by language, another by metaphysics, reason, emotion, etc ... -
Quoting praxis
This way of thinking is in part because of our existence as Beings. My use of "higher" is further proof that we are unable to attribute characteristics and details to the One without harming its concept.
Quoting TheMadFool
Agreed.
It’s everything, right? so how can we ever not be expecting it. Maybe the only problem is that we don’t realize the absolute. The Buddha solves the problem by sitting still, Timothy dropped acid, the Dervish twirl, etc, etc. The value is in relieving existential anxiety and anything beyond that probably enters the realm of religion and serves an entirely different purpose.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
In order to... what?
I've discussed language considerably at this forum. Generally, there are two distinct approaches. The first would be to define language as communication, and this implies an underlying supposition that it is a type of relationship between individuals. The second is to define it as a use of symbols, and this allows a broader range of human activity to be included under that name. Either way is acceptable depending on one's purpose. But if we use the first approach, we see that the means by which people communicate is the use of symbols. Then one might employ a private language sort of argument to restrict "language" to a particular type of use of symbols, communication between individuals. And this sort of definition will impede our process by excluding all the other ways that symbols are used by an individual, as irrelevant to "language" as defined, thus hindering our understanding of language.
So, suppose we have a fundamental unity, an individual, which for the sake of being relevant to this thread is called the primary "One", the absolute. Then we want to relate language to this One. The one way of looking at language places language as external to the One, as how the One relates to others through communion. But this leaves the individual, as a unity, a one, incomprehensible. The other way of looking at language places language as internal to the One, as a fundamental feature of what makes the One one, a unity.
The two ways represent distinct formulations of the absolute. One way formulates the ideal as a collection all particulars, related to each other through communication, as a whole, One. But this leaves the particulars, the individuals participants within the whole, undefined as ineligible for the status of "one", because internal relations cannot be equated with external relations. The opposite way formulates the ideal, One as a fundamental indivisible element. The unity of this fundamental whole cannot be represented as a collection of parts in communion, or else we have an infinite regress of divisible parts. Therefore there are two distinct and incompatible formulations of the ideal One. The former says everything real is internal to the One, the latter says everything real is external to the One.
there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool
Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) ?
I don't really agree, because as I described, there are uses of symbols which are not properly communication. This would include as a memory aid, or as an aid in understanding, use in logic, etc.. And, I would prefer to define language as a type of thing rather than as a type of activity, because that is the way that the word is commonly used. This leaves me with defining language in relation to the symbols (spoken and written words) themselves, rather than in relation to what is being done with the symbols, communicating. Since more is being done with the symbols than just communicating, we cannot restrict our definition of language by relating it solely to communication, as you propose.
Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass.
To actually perceive and understand it perfectly.
Quoting praxis
His - Plotinus's - "One" "cannot be any existing thing", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents".
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting EricH
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm OK working with however you choose to define your terms - but you gotta pick a usage/definition and stick to it. When you use the word objects? Are you including thoughts & photons in your usage/definition?
Yes. What's wrong with that?
Please cite where you read this in Plotinus.
The Enneads refer to all kinds of arguments, much like Aquinas did in his writing. I am not sure which argument is being referred to here.
(III.8.10) As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere (e.g. V.6.3), it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God.
there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses
Quoting EricH
Are you seriously suggesting that radio waves and thoughts are physical objects at the human scale?
This is completely wrong. You asked me for a definition. Clearly any word can be defined in a multiplicity of different ways. Obviously I'm going to provide you with my preferred way. Your idealist assumption concerning what is or is not the definition, is nonsense.
Quoting tim wood
This definition is completely unacceptable to me. I consider communication to be the act of transmitting, not the contents of the transmission.
Quoting tim wood
Yes I think your definition of communication is hopeless and we are going in the wrong direction, digressing instead of proceeding. I already offered you my preferred way of defining "language", but you rejected it and said that you are "not interested even a little bit in your preferences", so I think we have reached a hopeless situation.
If you’re suggesting a contradiction then what is it?
Are you reading the discussion? I doubt so.
Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Intellect to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.
Quoting Plotinus:
"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."
You could say the One, but not "The One is the One" because with that phrase, you introduce deficiency to it.
Do you not know how to read Tim? I did not say that I offered you a definition, I offered you my preferred way of defining the term, and you rejected it. Therefore I did not proceed any further. Nor will I proceed any further.
That doesn't explain the contradiction, if you believe there is one.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
A sun is a celestial body.
I don't believe there is contradiction on the philosophy of Plotinus. You affirmed that there was.
Quoting praxis
It really is impossible for you to try to understand a subject that you disagree with.
I'll quote Plotinus one more time:
"Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One."
I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason. Your prerogative of course.
And I get that this discussion isn't going anywhere.
We're in search of something that runs like a thread through all physical phenomena, in effect unifying them, just as producing milk for offspring unifies a segment of the living world as mammals.
Your question is odd since you brought up the issue atoms. Doesn't that make anything, radio and thoughts, fair game for this discussion? By the way, the wavelength of radiowaves are, if I'm correct, in the meters and that's human scale, right?
How could the One consist of parts in this way? Wouldn't this make it a multiplicity of distinct parts instead of being one? So for instance, doesn't the following statement describe a turning away from all such individualized parts?
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Once we get beyond the idea of distinct things which we can talk about (ideal forms), only then can we approach the One. This is why the procedure takes us beyond finitude. as that which separate, individual forms are supposed to have.
Quoting TheMadFool
At this point I'm still trying to understand what you're saying. When I first saw this sentence it seemed wrong to me since under the plain language usage of the word object - things you can bump into - there are clearly such physical attributes - mass, they occupy space, etc
But before pointing this out to you I wanted to double check how you were using the word objects in the context of this sentence. Hence my question about atoms, photons, etc.
And you responded that you were using the plain language definition
Quoting TheMadFool
So clearly using YOUR definition/usage there ARE attributes that each and every object in the universe possesses.
Quoting TheMadFool
Now you seem to be changing things around. Instead of talking about objects you're now talking about physical phenomena. That's OK - perhaps "objects" was a poor choice of words (although it would be nice if you acknowledged that).
So one more time, and then I give up:
Quoting TheMadFool
Dear sir or madam - please clarify what you mean by the word objects in this sentence. Thank you.
The One is perhaps more appropriately described with a single word.
Space.
You'll be asked the question: Which word is similar to the word "object"?
At this point there is no longer any need of discussion (a deficiency). Sounds like a version of union with the universal soul in stillness, as in line with the pursuit of Advaita Vedanta ("nonduality").
The One.
Plotinus:
"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought."
Quoting Nils Loc
Agreed completely.
I'm not playing your games. Your inability after numerous requests to give a clear explanation of your terms demonstrates that you yourself don't understand what you're saying.
I give you the last word in this fruitless exchange.
Perhaps what's needed here is a translation from one cultural language in to another? A less fancy more secular sounding way to put this could be....
We are made of thought. Thought operates by a process of division. Thus it's not possible to experience the unity of all things in that medium.
It seems possible to discuss such subjects from a purely mechanical perspective which doesn't introduce subjects like souls and so on. This may be useful when discussing such subjects with those who are alienated by more poetic language.
The reason I suggested using the word space to describe "The One" is that doing so translates an abstract religious sounding concept in to a tangible property of the natural world. Much of the language traditionally used to discuss such things was developed long before science came to dominate our culture. Translations may be helpful in reaching modern audiences.
Math is real, but it doesn't exist. So if someone were to ask that we prove that math exists we would be unable to do so, as it has no weight, no mass, no shape or form, is invisible etc.
Sorry if it seems like I'm playing games. I'm not. What I've said is what (I think) is the truth which is that there's no real attribute that can be said to unite the contents of our universe as one single unit apart from what can be referred to as their thingness.
I don't think he's being evasive, but is perhaps using language which isn't on the right channel for many readers of philosophy forums.
One way out of the endless round and round to nowhere which tends to afflict philosophy forums would be to shift the methodology of investigation from explanations to experience. To me, that's what's being implied by the philosophy being discussed.
Classical texts have already been adapted to contemporary vocabulary by translation into English and other languages. Adapting the vocabulary to the standards of the "new generations" is to distort the content and the message that the writer wanted to convey. The new generations that should adapt and try to understand the old texts, not the other way around.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
TRANSLATION: The more we try to define unity the farther we travel from it, because definitions are by their nature divisive.
This is not what Plotinus said. He said:
"Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."
Quoting Hippyhead
With the originality and attitude of having read Plato in Greek and trying to write in Latin and in Greek. If you want to read a work, you have to look for the context and the meaning that the writer wanted. Transforming this into another type of language simply to fit the current view is not translation, but revisionism.
That’s where we got hung up, I was saying that we are always experiencing the absolute and we simply don’t realize it. It’s not like it’s some other reality or metaphysical dimension that we don’t have access to.
Yes, good point, I agree. So to build on that...
Why don't we realize we are experiencing the absolute? Imho, that's because most of the time our attention isn't focused on reality, but instead on our thoughts about reality. It's not a complicated mysterious thing, but just a matter of not paying attention, of being distracted.
We can use rational thought to understand that we aren't paying attention to reality itself. So far, so good. But if we wish to continue further then the job is to shift our focus from rational thought to the real world. We use philosophy as far as it can take us, and then set it aside. Or to put it another way, we shift our focus from explanations to experience.
An analogy might help clarify the relationship between explanations and experience. Explanations about food can help us find food and consume it intelligently. That's good. But if we want the nutrition we have to actually eat the food. The nutrition is in the food, not in the explanations.
The same can be said for God, the absolute, The One, or whatever name is used. The nutrition is in the experience, not the explanations. Thus, the most rational explanation is the one that provides the shortest most widely accessible path from explanation to experience. The rational person picks up the food and eats it, instead of standing there all day merely talking about it.
Quoting Plotinus
Plotinus is saying that by adding further thought, a medium which operates by a process of division, we are polluting an understanding of The One with division, thus distorting it's unified nature.
Note how Plotinus says, "add no further thought". He's not saying that one thought is appropriate and that another one isn't. By using the all inclusive phrase "add no thought" he is referring to the medium of thought itself. He's saying, the more we think about this the more we're going to muck it up, because the divisive nature of thought will inevitably misperceive a phenomena which is beyond division. Plotinus is using philosophy, to point beyond philosophy.
What lies beyond philosophy is experience.
That could happen yes. Not all translations are of equal quality, agreed. I wouldn't however agree that every translation is automatically a distortion.
Nor would I agree that's it's essential that we understand what Plotinus meant. He's another writer on the forum. He's said some things which have sparked interesting discussion. All that's good. To me, the bottom line is, how useful is that discussion to participants?
Isn't there a difference between the Good and the One?
Usually the One is associated with Parmenides and the Good with Plato with the metaphysical distinction that the One is bounded whereas the Good is indeterminate. The Good is generative of all other Forms in an unspecified or yet to be specified manner. This way the One was complete but the Good remained a metaphysical puzzler.
This is practically what Plotino claims the One is. If you disagree, that is a matter of opinion, but if it is about Plotinus' philosophy, it is a misinterpretation.
Quoting Hippyhead
In this discussion, it is interesting to try to understand Plotinu's philosophy, as one of his philosophical aspects is the center of the argumentation.
If people are here, investing their time to respond and try to refute, or argue about the One, for these people, this matter is important. Obviously it will not be "useful" for all the forum participants, however, for this same reason this discussion is restricted to about 5 people.
Quoting magritte
Plotinus uses "the One" and "the Good" interchangeably.
Reminds me of Spinoza's Ethics, aside from the fact the Spinoza aimed at God as the source of all creation(I think) and Plotinus seemed to want to avoid all that. Seems also that Spinoza's results are in line with Plotinus' aims.
A person who does not have an in-depth study of Plotinus' philosophy would easily have confused the concept of the One with God; it is a very easy mistake to make. But, yes, Plotinus tried to abstract all the "divine" perfection of a transcendental Being and put it in a type of non-characteristic "object" that was a central point of study of this metaphysical concept of "absolute". Apparently, his attempt was not successful, because decades later, Christians would use his concept of "hypostatic substance" to give more foundation to the concept of trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, are nothing more than Christian versions of the One - The Father -, the Intellect - the Son - and the soul - the Holy Spirit -. Spinoza was from the time where the Christian version was already - for more than a thousand years - the norm, so its not impressive that he would try to aim at God rather than another thing - as the One -.
Understood. I've no where near enough knowledge of Plotinus to be of much help here. Just seemed like Spinoza successfully accomplished(contrary to his own aims) what Plotinus seems to have set out to do. So, I wondered if you agreed to that, trusting that you are familiar with Plotinus. Hence, my initial reply. If I had more time, I would spend some researching Plotinus, for the notion of monism interests me, despite not being able to agree with it.
:wink:
My own position demands a plurality of things. Beyond or 'beneath' that, I've no reason to believe that it is even possible for us to know much at all more about the origens of the universe. So, I stop when I've reached the limits...
I have the impression that you took my previous comment personally, but it was not focused on you and in fact, on anyone. I just mentioned that Plotinus can easily be distorted and misunderstood. And yes, I agree that Spinoza continued - but not accomplished - from where Plotino started, however, in a different way to how Plotino first conceptualized- The One is not God -.
:grin:
No worries. I did not take that personally, just so you know. Rather, I just wanted to be clear about my intentions here.
Cheers!
:grin: :up:
The One is not the Other, obviously.
So you can joke?
Ok Gus, would you like to further explain Plotino's view on Praxis's claim above? I hope this is a relevant quote, perhaps you'd like to expand on it?
Perhaps it would help to further define the terms he is using, such as transcendent and existents?
I agree that in agreeing with Praxis I'm just offering my own view of such things and not an interpretation of Plotino's view. My own view is that the observable physical reality around us is a single unified phenomena, and it's the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to things, parts, being and non-being etc. That is, the divisions we perceive are a property of the tool (thought) being used to make the observation, and not a property of that being observed.
How might you compare this theory to that of Plotino?
The One, as comprehended by Plotinus is a "metaphysics of radical transcendence that extends beyond being and intellection." The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world, but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable "One". Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process.
"We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one."
If allowed, I would compare Plotinus's the "One" with the primordial singularity of our Universe. It Is the singularity, it was not and cannot Be, because these concepts apply only to existing things, which, being existent, are already less perfect than it and were "emanated" - using Plotinus's terms - from it. I would rather not even use articles to talk about "One". Instead of saying:
"The One Is"
Just simply say:
"The One"
For the mere fact of attributing it to a finite concept - Is - we are no longer talking about the One, but to something less than it.
Quoting Hippyhead
Superficially considered, Plotinus seems to offer an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo - out of nothing -, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. The metaphysics of emanation, however, just like the metaphysics of Creation, confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, as the source of the Being of all things that yet remains transcendent of them in its own nature; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus, using a venerable analogy, likens the One to the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.
The first emanation is Nous - Intellect, Logos, Order, Thought, Reason, etc... -, identified metaphorically with the Demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first Will toward Good - the One -. From Nous proceeds the World Soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of Nous and the world soul.
Not at all. I claimed that it's not some other thing and you appeared to suggest that it is some other thing, that it’s Other, and One is not the Other.
Sorry for the comment, but I can't have a discussion with you when your argument is simply:
"I said that, and you got it wrong."
Ok thanks. So the first challenge we face in understanding Plotinus is that few if any of us likely have any idea what that means.
I do get this part....
My translation would be, anything expressed in language will immediately fall victim to the divisive nature of thought, which by it's very nature can not express whatever lies beyond division.
This is helpful too...
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I would assert that it is the divisive nature of thought which conceptually divides reality in to mental categories like "divine" vs."non-divine".
What if "things" don't actually exist but are instead conceptual inventions of the human mind?
When does a glass of water you drink become you? We could reasonably draw that boundary in any number of places, which illustrates that boundaries are convenient human conceptual creations. And if boundaries aren't real, things aren't either. And then we're left with the real world being a single unified phenomena. The One?
This part is less complex than it appears to be. Plotinus is claiming that the "proper name" - if I may put it so - of the One is enough to conceive all of its abstraction.
"The One".
Without more, without less.
Quoting Hippyhead
It is a good description of the same concept that Plotinus is conceptualizing, but I think it unnecessary- here, speaking from my personal opinion - this adaptation to the "new times". If I got - and I'm pretty sure that I got - the concept right with the proper words of Plotinus, anyone can do it.
Quoting Hippyhead
The "Nous" - intellect, logos, etc... - is already imperfect, then, rationalizing what Plotinus said about everything emanating from the One, it is obvious that the mind would be something, as he says, deficient.
You're not wrong about the mind, but you forgot that the very nature of the intellect is already something less than the One, so we cannot fully comprehend it.
Indeed, so how can there be an Other as Gus seems to claim there is?
Yeah Praxis, you really didn't understand anything, and worse, you don't even try to argue for your wrong point.
What’s there to argue, the One cannot have an other. How is it at all reasonable to claim otherwise?
No idea what this means either.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
If everyone everywhere understands Plotinus in his own words, then translations would be unnecessary, agreed. In such a case, you might as well post Plotinus's writing in full, and leave it at that, no need for discussion.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I didn't forget it, that's what I'm saying. A tool which operates by a process of division will not be able to comprehend anything that lies beyond division. If true, then philosophy is pointless for such subjects, eh?
Seems a reasonable point to me.
The Catholics got caught up in this mess too. On one hand they state that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which if taken seriously would mean God is everything and everything is God, a state of non-division. But then they want God to be something separate too.
I see the problem as the attempt to use an inherently divisive medium like thought to try to discuss concepts like unity, The One etc, leading to an eternal muddle.
Praxis does fall victim to a bit of lazy snarkiness sometimes, and I know, having invented that myself. :-)
But here I think he's just being concise. I'm appreciating the lack of clutter and use of everyday language.
Plotinus can explain for me:
"Once you have uttered "The One" add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."
The One.
Quoting Hippyhead
The purpose of this discussion was practically to resolve why people confused the concept of the One of Plotinus with the theistic concept of God. The discussion followed a path that seems to seek to refute Plotinus. That is not the intention.
Quoting Hippyhead
The use of a more indirect language is ok, but he seems to be purposefully making tired and unfounded statements simply because he doesn't want to expatiate more on his views - that are wrong about Plotinus's views -. This is not a discussion then.
You're not making sense. Please clarify.
The challenge makes sense to me.
Is Plotinus claiming there is The One, and then other stuff which is outside of The One? Or is The One conceived to be all inclusive?
Quoting Gus Lamarch
I like big picture ideas which are outside of the boring either/or construct of the God debate. If that's what's being explored I'm interested.
If you divide something, let’s say a piece of clay, into two pieces then you will no longer have One piece of clay, you’ll have two pieces of clay.
Rather, Gus seemed to be saying that The One is other and inaccessible.
Now it is.
Quoting praxis
The point is that the One of this hypothetical "clay" would be the entire soil of the Earth.
Quoting praxis
I'm not saying anything, Plotinus is saying that the One is inaccessible for anything other than himself.
And everything, yes?
No, because everything emanates from it. Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One:
"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God."
Plotinus, Enneads
How did you get interested in Neoplatonism?
My first contact with Neoplatonism was through the study of Christian philosophy and theology - more specifically, Early Christianity - and somehow, I knew that the concept of the Trinity had been stolen - like all other Christian concepts - from some other group of people, or of a specific individual. It was then that I came to Plotinus and his philosophy, read and tried to understand his works -and contextualize them in the period of his life - and concepts.
If I may ask the question, why are you curious?
Of course, any new knowledge is always appreciated.
Quoting frank
Oh my friend, pick the book and lets go! :grin:
I don't think that's quite right. "Good" is related to Act, and "One" is related to Potential.
This is one reason why people have trouble understanding Plotinus. Metaphysical concepts which have contrary incompatible underlying assumptions cannot be used interchangeably without introducing equivocation and logical incoherence.
Plato mostly got these right whereas Platonists uniformly get them wrong. It is amazing how a fundamentally simple closed static One can be confused with an open transcendent interactive Good, or how either can be thought of as an active creative Agent.
Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer potentiality without which nothing could exist. So no, the one is not related to potential.
Sure.
The first purpose of this discussion of mine was about the fact that people find it very easy to confuse the concepts of the One with God. It is probably because of the interchangeable use of some concepts by Plotinus, but it is also likely that his philosophy was focused on a group of people who would understand what Plotinus was trying to explain - his students -.
An excellent point. This is also the most effective way to interpret professor Plato. Something like the Theaetetus was written to fly over the heads of casual or unsympathetic readers.
You gotta admit it’s pretty self-denying for anyone to deny sentience or self-awareness.
Because the absolute is not IT and doesn't help describe IT.
As soon as you describe IT, the description is inaccurate.
It's like being unable to fish with a harpoon because you keep missing.
So, anything we define is debatable and has flaws that can be pointed at.
I am not here to discuss whether Plotinus is correct or not. I am simply stating that people, when reading his works, easily confuse the concept of the One with God.
Agreed.
This is what Plotinus is saying.
In the moment we try to atribute something to a concept of absolute, it is not anymore absolute. People don't get that - @praxis -
And yet it is. How could it possibly not be?
I am very familiar with Plato, have read many dialogues numerous times. They are very interesting, and relevant topics for the modern world. I particularly like The Symposium as a good introduction to Plato's style.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
You contradict yourself when you say that "a sheer potentiality...is not related to potential".
Why Aristotle provides better fundamental principles than Plotinus is because he maintains consistently the categorical separation between potential and actual. Plotinus, following more closely to Plato, displays confusion with respect to these categories. Notice that "Intellect" and "Soul" emanate from "One" but this is not an act of the One. So emanation is closer to the old Pythagorean idea of "participation", in which the thing participated in (the One) is necessarily passive, while the participants are active. Intellect participates in One. But Aristotle, refuted this theory of participation, with his cosmological argument, demonstrating that it is impossible for any potentiality to be eternal, therefore anything eternal must be actual. This is why the cosmological argument becomes the cornerstone for the Christians proof of God, as an active, actual, Being who creates because it is Good.
Plotinus accepts the Good as a principle of action, bit he cannot reconcile the Good with the One, which is supposed to be an absolute, and eternal potentiality. This leaves incompatibility within the first principles, because the emanation from the One is supposed to be passive like participation, yet he describes the activity inspired by the Good. This activity has no place in that scenario of emanation, which is a re-presentation of the theory of participation.
I was thinking the Symposium or Phaedo..
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For Plotinus the Good is associated with Nous, so why would he have to reconcile it with the One?
Phadoe is a bit abstract, and some people get turned off because it's so mythical. It might not seem very relevant.
Quoting frank
It's an absolute, like One, and a good metaphysics needs to show the relationship between first principles.
But is the Good absolute? If matter is a privation of the Good, doesnt that mean the Good can show up in a partial way?
If you mean Plotinus' solution to the problem of evil doesn't work, you may be right. I didnt really understand his solution.
Nicely put, it is odd when folk try to say that the one is something else, thereby insisting one is as least two.
For Neoplatonists, the All is all three: unity + multiplicity. It's also monistic idealsim, so we have to change worldviews to interpret stuff. This is not Buddhism, although Christian/Buddhist combos did once exist in central Asia. They're amenable to fusion, but they arent identical.
You seem to be missing one.
Van Gogh was cross-eyed. Betcha didn't know that.
Yes, I know this, I suppose the way I'm talking is in abstraction when using words and thoughts. I do have other ways of relating to the one more directly.
I think of one as already actually two, two is actually three because there are two and the some of them which is one, hence there are three. Three is actually four in the same way. The religious cosmogonies seem to see it this way also. So in a sense one becomes three leapfrogging two.
I do not think that Plotinus develops an adequate description of the relationship between matter and good. In any case, I don't think you can say that matter is a privation of the Good itself, it is a privation of a thing in relation to the Good. Objects are deprived, the Good is not.
Quoting frank
I don't agree with this. There is no necessity for the negation of an object of thought, I believe that's a faulty principle. This is why the Good is an absolute. The good is the object of thought, in the sense of a goal, what is wanted, desired. And to speak of its negation is nonsense, because as what is wanted, it is already nonexistent. The "backdrop" of a good is a privation, but privation cannot be understood as a negation. It really doesn't makes sense to speak of the negation of an object of thought.
Matter is privation of the Good isn't it?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Matter is supposed to be somehow emergent. It would be cool to talk to him and get him to explain that.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Its a principle essential to Neoplatonism and runs from Plato through Hegel to Schopenhauer. Even if you disagree with it, you cant deny its place in philosophy, right?
I think a privation is always of the form, when a thing is less that perfect, so matter is a separate principle from privation. I believe it was the Manicheans and perhaps Gnostics who taught that matter is inherently evil. But I think Plotinus rejected this for a more Aristotelian perspective which holds that good, and privation are proper to the form of a thing, not its matter.
Quoting frank
I know Plato pretty well, and I don't see this negation of intelligible objects, ideas, in his work, not even in The Sophist. Nor do I see it in any Neo-Platonism. I think you are relying on faulty interpretation.
So I don't deny that it has a place in philosophy, I deny that it is in the place where you say it is.
Plotinus' matter is devoid of form. It's also evil:
"Considered abstractly and from within Plotinus' system it should be no surprise that matter is the ultimate evil: matter is at the bottom, the Good is at the top. They are opposites. What could matter be, then, other than evil? Matter is not, by consequence, an independent power opposing the Good, however: Plotinus' whole approach to the question of evil consists in explaining its evil nature as its lack of goodness and being, its powerlessness, indefinitenesss..." -- Plotinus, Eyjolfur K Emilsson, 194
"If matter or evil is ultimately caused by the One, then is not the One, as the Good, the cause of evil? In one sense, the answer is definitely yes. As Plotinus reasons, if anything besides the One is going to exist, then there must be a conclusion of the process of production from the One. The beginning of evil is the act of separation from the One by Intellect, an act which the One itself ultimately causes. The end of the process of production from the One defines a limit, like the end of a river going out from its sources. Beyond the limit is matter or evil." --SEP article on Plotinus
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Did you read Phaedo? Based on what you're saying, I don't know what you would make of the argument for the immortality of the Soul.
Matter, for Plotinus is the receptacle of form, just like in Plato's Timaeus. And, we can talk about matter devoid of form, but Aristotle demonstrated that this is impossible in reality
Quoting frank
Matter and form are categorically separated, even for Plotinus. So good and lack of good are in the same category, as being proper to the form. These are the degrees of good and privation. Evil, he describes in the First Ennead, Eight Tractate, as a complete lack of any good, and this makes it a sot of non-being:
This is why evil becomes associated with formless matter. But formless matter, as demonstrated by Aristotle's cosmological argument is an impossibility, it's a nonsensical, incomprehensible proposition. Plotinus calls this an "Absolute Formlessness", or "Absolute Evil". So if we relegate Good to the category of Form and Privation, such that Good exists by degree relative to privation, we have no longer any need for Absolute Evil because there is no such thing as absolute Good, good exists by degree.
Quoting frank
This cannot be the case, because "evil" in Plotinus' sense, is an absolute, non-being, so it cannot be caused. Causation is reserved to the realm of individual forms, and within this realm there are only varying degrees of good and privation, not evil, which is an absolute lack of good. We must recognize that privation is distinct from evil, the latter being an absolute, the former being relative to good.
Quoting frank
I haven't read Phaedo recently, so you'd have to refresh my memory of the argument you refer to. I do remember one strong argument for the soul being prior to the body, but I cannot remember the specifics of it. I believe it says basically that the body is organized, and does not exist as anything other than being organized. So the body does not exist prior to being organized. However, the cause of its organization, as cause, is necessarily prior to it, and therefore prior to the body as well.
I think I said earlier, or perhaps in another thread, that there are inconsistencies and ambiguity in Plotinus' principles which make working out specific problems of how the fundamental principles are related to each other impossible.
Definitely. His solution to the problem of evil is squirrelly. It's the same problem any kind of monist has. Plotinus' view was popular in Rome during his life, not as a religious perspective but more like science. Plato was like their quantum theory. There were multiple forms of Platonism.