Talk:Neoplatonism: Difference between revisions
LoveMonkey (talk | contribs) |
you win |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
I would appreciate it if you would refrain, from making any more silly assumptions. Rewrite the sentence if you don't like the wording. Grow up and stop deflecting (if you can make demands why can't I). The sentence reflects the division between [[Iamblichus]] and [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and of course [[Gnosticism]]. If you can rewrite it to be clearer, do so. Please do so if responding pains you so much, to the point of ridiculous overly dramatic exaggerations. |
I would appreciate it if you would refrain, from making any more silly assumptions. Rewrite the sentence if you don't like the wording. Grow up and stop deflecting (if you can make demands why can't I). The sentence reflects the division between [[Iamblichus]] and [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] and of course [[Gnosticism]]. If you can rewrite it to be clearer, do so. Please do so if responding pains you so much, to the point of ridiculous overly dramatic exaggerations. |
||
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:LoveMonkey|LoveMonkey]] ([[User talk:LoveMonkey|talk]]) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Why on earth would someone with so much anger want to be a part of a collaborative effort? Lovemonkey, are you always this hostile on every article you work on? Similarly, why would anyone want to help write this article if they have to deal with you? I bow to you, good sir: correct the sentence yourself, or leave it in the piss-poor condition it currently is in. ([[User:PhilipDSullivan|PhilipDSullivan]] ([[User talk:PhilipDSullivan|talk]]) 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
==Just incase the link goes down again== |
==Just incase the link goes down again== |
Revision as of 06:54, 10 February 2008
![]() | Philosophy: Ancient Unassessed Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Occult Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Greece Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Someone who knows what Neoplatonism _is_ needs to add something about it here. The present entry gives no real indication of the philosophy. And para. 2 merely duplicates what is said under Plotinus. neo platonism is ...
Pamplemousse 02:57 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)
I agree, in particular looking at the introduction. The intro needs to say much less about history, and it needs to have (and mostly consist of) a very short summary of the neoplatonist philosophy. --134.68.241.136 05:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, it also misses the entire Paris school, from which sprang both Abelard's Conceptualist mediation on Nominalism (an immanent theism) and the Victorine Realists whose philosophy led, through John of Ruysbroeck, to Thomas à Kempis. These are the very roots of the Sorbonne.Jel 07:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As the article on Saccas says "As he designedly wrote nothing, and, with the aid of his pupils, kept his views secret, after the manner of the Pythagoreans/.../", I suppose it may not be the best to call him "illiterate" - or we could use the same description for Pythagoras, too.
I would say Neoplatonic tendencies in 20th c. Western philosophy have mostly been reduced to esoteric schools of thought, but I haven't researched the subject thoroughly enough to say anything definite. While I'd like to point on the strong Neoplatonic influence in modern Russian philosophy (Alexey Losev et al.) as a contrast, but without any comments on the West it would be pretty biased. Could someone describe the fate of Neoplatonism after its reanimation by Ficino? Oop 23:35, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Islam
It would be nice if someone with better english knowledge than me would at an parapgraph about the great influence neoplatonism had on Sufism (Islamic Mysticism) and Islamic Philosophie. The article at the moment is too oxident-centered.
- Write it here in such English as you can muster (or Spanish, French, or German), and I will carry it into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Ismailis
The Ismailis were late neoplatonists, i.e. they developed their doctrine not earlier than the first half of the 10th ct. AD and not in North Africa but in Persia where it moved slowly noth-west. Their earlier doctrine was of a gnostic nature. I'm not so much into it but according to this study here: "Halm, Hein. Kosmologie und Heilslehre der frühen Ismailiya. Steiner: 1978." that's what it is. --Zorroz Msgs 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Copyright!?
How much of the text in the Islamic section is copyrighted? We can use short quotations from copyrighted works (according to US fair use laws at least), but they have to be set in "quotation marks", and ideally,
"they should be set off from the main text in block quotes."
Best, QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 02:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like there are definite copyvios on this article. It's sad that nobody followed up on this for months. Maestlin 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whose copyright might we be infringing upon? Was it listed at WP:CP? Jkelly 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you absolutely certain that you're not looking at legitimate or illegitimate Wikipedia:Mirrors? Jkelly 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the section on Islamic Neoplatonism came from Neoplatonism in Islamic philosophy, which has a copyright notice. The entire section on Renaissance Neoplatonism, including all subsections, came from Renaissance Neo-Platonism, which also has a copyright notice. I am fairly confident these two are not mirror sites because they both have copyright dates in the late 1990s. I believe there is more, but I will have to take a closer look. Maestlin 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, yes, this does look like a problem. Jkelly 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- And this is where it happened. 62.25.106.209 (talk · contribs) back in January. Jkelly 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- The good news, if there is any, is that the rest of the article seems to be sound. My suspicions about it had been raised by what turned out to be a mirror site. That still leaves a lot of the article as a problem. What should I do? Maestlin 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
List it at WP:CP with all of the information we discovered. Jkelly 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)I'm wrong, we revert back to the last good version. Jkelly 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Permission
I know the arbitration rullings already, however, I do think that in this instance, Lyndon LaRouche has a place of mention, given that his philosophy is merely a form of Neo-Platonism (albeit, a strict fundamentalist one). Most of his conspiracy theories are based on Schiller's own theory of a historical struggle between Plato's Rationalism and Materialism (as advocated by Aristotle). Is some mention of him allowed? This is a relevant artical. -- IdeArchos 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's the wrong way 'round. A link to this article might make sense from that politician's article, but this isn't a list of everyone who has said that they were inspired by Neoplatonism. Jkelly 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Timaeus
Article: The concept of the One was not as clearly defined in Plato's Timaeus as it later was by Plotinus' Enneads. Does Timaeus define "the One" at all? Maybe it's just the Zeyl translation, but I can't find any mention of it. Dan 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
removing Modern neo-platonism
no such movement in modern philosophy today recognizing a modern school of Neo-platonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.187.45 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- But there is a cited source in that paragraph. Shawnpoo 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
John D. Turner
"The Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Porphyry has been referred to as really being orthodox (neo)Platonic philosophy by scholars like Professor John D. Turner." This sentence is something like the fourth or fifth of the article. The link it provides is down and the sentence seems to be of no real importance and possibly an advertisement for the professor; it just seems odd and out of place. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC))
- It is amusing what google can do [1]. So are you implying by "no real importance and possibly an advertisement for the professor; it just seems odd and out of place." That scholars and their work no longer have a place at wikipedia? That sourcing articles is a form of advertising and vanity.Hey uh what Neoplatonic scholar and member of the International Neoplatonic Society do you purpose we replace Professor Turner's citations with [2]? What of the group is your favorite scholar? What set of their work do you enjoy the best, I mean which one do you think would actual adhere to wiki policy and improve the article. I think Ed Moore personally but you know peer pressure can force people to give up the truth and go right to the devil, just look at Martin Heidegger. So who's your favorite Neoplatonic philosopher? Are you implying that because a link that republishes Professor Turners' work is down that the points are no longer valid or are made up?
LoveMonkey (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you calmed down. Take a second look at the sentence I mentioned. Not only did it not have a working link, but it is a terrible sentence. When I read articles I look for things that seem out of place. I apologize if I have upset you in anyway. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
I would appreciate it if you would refrain, from making any more silly assumptions. Rewrite the sentence if you don't like the wording. Grow up and stop deflecting (if you can make demands why can't I). The sentence reflects the division between Iamblichus and Porphyry and of course Gnosticism. If you can rewrite it to be clearer, do so. Please do so if responding pains you so much, to the point of ridiculous overly dramatic exaggerations. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why on earth would someone with so much anger want to be a part of a collaborative effort? Lovemonkey, are you always this hostile on every article you work on? Similarly, why would anyone want to help write this article if they have to deal with you? I bow to you, good sir: correct the sentence yourself, or leave it in the piss-poor condition it currently is in. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC))
Just incase the link goes down again
From the Book and First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism.
GNOSTICISM AND PLATONISM
THE PLATONIZING SETHIAN TEXTS FROM NAG HAMMADI IN THEIR RELATION TO LATER PLATONIC LITERATURE
by
JOHN D. TURNER
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
pages 425-459 in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism
(Ed. R. T. Wallis and J. Bregman. Studies in Neoplatonism 6. Albany: SUNY Press, 1992)
In the late third century, Sethianism also became estranged from orthodox (Neo)Platonism under the impetus of attacks and refutations from the circle of Plotinus and other Neoplatonists which were just as effective as those of the Christian heresiologists. At this time, whatever Sethianism was left became increasingly fragmented into various derivative and other sectarian gnostic groups such as the Archontics, Audians, Borborites, Phibionites and others, some of which survived into the Middle Ages.
http://jdt.unl.edu/triadaft.ht
LoveMonkey (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unassessed Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Unassessed Ancient philosophy articles
- Low-importance Ancient philosophy articles
- Ancient philosophy task force articles
- Unassessed Occult articles
- Unknown-importance Occult articles
- WikiProject Occult articles
- Unassessed Greek articles
- Unknown-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages