Talk:Neoplatonism/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions about Neoplatonism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old talk

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. --Zorro^z 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, Quartier Latin1968 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))

Why on earth are you insisting on the silly assumption that my responses are out of anger? Why on earth are you not answering the questions I have asked you? Now I would appreciate it if you would follow your own advice and calm down. Instead of say, projecting back on me your "no show" behaviour. What scholars are you basing your work upon seriously. What scholars works and not your opinion (which is OR and not allowed) are you basing such a criteria of piss poor wording upon? Your complains are compared to whom? What segment of their works? What scholars and sources do you and are you bringing to this article? How knowledgable are you about the subject matter? Where bookwise and the like did you obtain your knowledge. I have already stated that I get mine from reading books on the subject. Why the dodging? You can call to task, but then blow smoke and attempt to confuse and engage in emotional hysterics and outragious assumptions, when the standard is applied to you?
Now ante up "Good sir", your the one who's complaining, your the one whos standard is so important, so lets see it already. Again of the sentences that are piss poor, as long as it creates no distortions (as I found even just yesterday, --as if only one group of Neoplatonists believed in henosis--) go ahead and rewrite them. Stop projecting on me some warped sense of oversensitivity and jump to it. If you wish to leave, good-bye. in the interm from your comments, you should consider that projecting and dodging and blowing smoke will not absolve you from anything, nor doing these things, would ever present an example of collaboration. Put up, jump to it. Stop complaining, stop whining and collaborate already. Lets see you reword those sentences you don't like, to reflect encyclopedia standard. Get over it and jump to it already. Lets see what you've got. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unethical accusations

"no real importance and possibly an advertisement for the professor"

Hey PhilipDSullivan also pretty please with cherrys on top, stop making accussations and assumptions of unethicial behaviour. My sentence about Professor Turner has no such vanity, since advertisments like you have accused and implied have no place on wikipedia. Your comments make me wonder if either you are hostile to the Professor or Professors in general. It also makes me think that you are completely willing to hurt the collaborative Wikipedia project by making such a bad and provocative accusation. You have no excuse for posting such a statement. I think anyone in review of this would see that assuming, the sentence is an advertisment for the professor as now any sourcing for that matter, would in the very least be "unacceptable" and "irresponsible" comments. As the statement could be perceived as undermining a legitimate source and making sourcing information now advertising. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just incase the link goes down again

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)

Martyr not a Neoplatonist

Why does the article say that Justin Martyr was converted from Neoplatonism to Christianity? If Neoplatonism didn't even exist before the 3rd century, this is too late, since Justin Martyr lived in the mid 2nd century. Hope nobody minds if I take it out. Jbe educational (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)JBE EducationalJbe educational (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm taking this out. I'm also taking out the two sentences in the introduction which talk about the "cross-pollination" of Neoplatonism/Christianity. We don't know who the Dionysius the pseudo-Aeropagite was, nevermind do we have any evidence that he was converted to Christianity, having been a pagan Neoplatonist (except of course that the individual from whom he borrowed his pen name was supposedly converted by Paul in Athens, but the author the other works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite simply was not that person). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.20.143 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Useless introduction

As it stands, the introduction is four paragraphs long without managing to give a single shred of information on what Neoplatonism is actually about. From other comments here, it seems that this has been an issue since 2007 (!) and still isn't fixed. All the intro paragraphs provide is history of where Neoplatonism came from, without providing any summary of the central concepts. drt1245 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Not a single shred.... & that's still true now, in 2018! ...with the exception of this short phraise:

"Neoplatonic philosophy derives the whole of reality from a single principle, "the One"".

You say; "an issue since 2007 (!)" ....Jeepers, how many years now has this article not met Wikipedia standards!? Somebody should take a gander at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:CCB5:DDE9:52E:F9B3 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Platonism and Neoplatonism

/* Platonism and Neoplatonism */ this section has no references for its claims, presents arguments that may be original, and is not in accord with mainstream scholarship. It doesn't mention the other, dominant scholarly views on this.

I don't have time to list all the references, but the mainstream view is that the neo-Platonic reading of Plato is strained. This reads like it was written by someone defending the neo-Platonist reading. It doesn't provide authoritative references for its conclusions from modern scholars, (nor ancient ones), and does not present the other views on this.

I think the views expressed, for example that the sentence about essence in the Republic is ample justification for the philospohy of Plotinus, should be referenced to an authoritative modern reference. and that the opposing view, that the sentence is subject to other more likely meanings, should aso be expressed and referenced.

The entire relationship of neo-Platonism to Platonism is a complex subject with many differing views on it. This section as it stands is unbalanced.

01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiceMilk (talk • contribs)

Okay, it's been tagged for long enough, so I've deleted that paragraph. If someone wants to create a new section exploring the relationship between Platonism and Neoplatonism, with references, then they have my best wishes. Pasicles (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hole?

Who is Hole? A reference? Kortoso (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That does kind of stick out, doesn't it. It looks like they were added via this edit back in 2009 by an IP. I tried a few Google searches to try to figure out what it could be but the best I could find were mentions of "Rabbit Hole" (names of websites, etc.). Perhaps there's someone with more expertise than me who could think of a different name to put there? Seems like Yates might be appropriate given the content? --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

i've made changes

I've been working on the article for the past three days or so, mostly on the introduction. I hope that people approve of the changes that I've made; I've been rather bold, and people might disagree with some of the things that I've taken out, so I understand if ya'all want to make some changes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Neoplatonism begins by criticizing whether "Neoplatonism" is a useful term, and that for a time something like this was present in the introduction. I thought it'd be worthwhile to start a new section on the history of the term Neoplatonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.20.143 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Aquinas

Aquinas read Pseudo-Dionysius (q.v.) not Dionysius himself. I changed the reference. (UTC) Sorry - forgot to log in. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The introduction remains useless

After reading the introduction one still has no idea what Neoplatonism actually is. This issue was brought up 12 years ago, 7 years ago and 3 years ago so I'm bringing it up again. Can somebody please add just one sentence describing the key ideas of Neoplatonism (if anyone on the face of this planet actually knows what it is)? Brightnsalty (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

→→→→→→I think that the introduction when you made this comment was actually sufficient in providing a concise description of what Neoplatonism is in its opening sentence. Nonetheless, I've made some changes to the intro that I think unpack what the original sentence is supposed to mean. Better? Hopefully it's an improvement, but the intro still needs work. Longlonglongnightnightnight (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

introduction improvements

I tried, and sorry for the edit spam, I'm new. I did what of that I could in the first paragraphs; I think this article could benefit from A LOT of reduction -- move the list of Neoplatonists to the category page entirely, and make the basic description of the concepts 1. ACTUALLY BASIC, 2. flow together read-ably and 3. link to the individual concept pages for depth. (which I'm not (yet) capable of doing)

The history and influences on later schools of thought I don't know enough to touch, but it's important to me to make it clear that Neoplatonic thought was universally polytheistic or henotheistic (interpret-able through the lens of any one of many equally-infinite gods -- the influence of "oriental" and "egyptian" cults meant that it wasn't just a theology of this or that Olympian mentioned in Plato but built as a framework that meant to make philosophical sense of the universe for ALL ancient polytheisms -- NOT monistic or monotheistic) and created in both rhetorical and logical opposition to christianity. Gwenbasil (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm restoring the introduction before your changes. While I agree that the page as a whole would be served by significant reductions, your changes to the first few paragraphs are, in my opinion, too extreme, and, unacceptable as a summary of Neoplatonism. The points three points that you reduce Neoplatonism to -- that it's an "exegesis of Plato", that it's a "way of life", and that it attempts to "systematize the revelation of the gods" -- are all peripheral points, and are quite vague. For instance, it's far too bold a claim to suggest that Neoplatonism is an "exegesis" of Plato, given that none of the most important texts of Neoplatonism -- the Enneads, Proclus' Elements of Theology, On the Mysteries, etc. etc -- are in any explicit sense "exegeses". That is, while they may contain explicit and implicit allusions to Platonic texts, they are not texts that belong to the literary genre of commentary. Also, your point about "systematzing the revelation of the gods" is simply vague. I don't know what you mean by it, and I certainly don't see it reflected in all of the major Neoplatonic texts. Finally, your point about the medieval reception of Neoplatonism is *far* too reductive. There were many ways that Neoplatonism influenced medieval philosophy, as well as subsequent eras in the history of philosophy. Nevermind that there is, despite your objection, undoubtedly a monotheistic or at least a monistic component to Neoplatonism already -- Neoplatonism arguments and concepts required minimal adaption to fit in the "monotheistic" theological frameworks of the Abrahamic faiths.

My previous revisions to the introduction were based on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neoplatonism and on Pauliina Remes' book on the subject. Their views reflect dominant scholarly opinion on the field, and therefore they are are good models for distilling the essential points of Neoplatonism. Longlonglongnightnightnight (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead, again

I've made another attempt to shorten the lead; I'm also re-ordering the info in the article itself now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The article itself needs further clean-up; no wonder that previous discussions didn't get further than the lead... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also remarkable that no mention wa sbeing made of Meister Eckhart, nor of the Transcendentalists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Today I was hasty in replying to the 27 September 2011 complaint above: Useless introduction, but since I now see that this theme is repeated so often, I wonder if anybody will read it. Unlike many of the Lead complaints, his is that the Lead is: "....paragraphs long without managing to give a single shred of information on what Neoplatonism is actually about...." Bingo! Forgive me for repeating my above reply here:

Yup. Not a single shred.... & that's still true now, in 2018! ...with the exception of this short phraise:

"Neoplatonic philosophy derives the whole of reality from a single principle, "the One"".

You say; "an issue since 2007 (!)" ....Jeepers, how many years now has this article not met Wikipedia standards!? That lead is among the worst I've seen, it's like an empty box. Is this topic akin to taboo? ...to cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance? Yes, the topic is difficult. Somebody should take a gander at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:CCB5:DDE9:52E:F9B3 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I agree the lede is terrible. One of the major problems is its focus on the 'term' neoplatonism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it should focus on the topic, not the word. So, the first sentence should be like 'Neoplatonism is a ...' and then detail how it is going to be defined for the scope of this article. I see in the first note that an editor is concerned that the term was never self-identified, but was a creation of 19th century historians. I do not consider this a valid concern, since a huge portion of terms for history are only later assigned, for example: ancient times, dark ages, medieval, pagan, age of migration, reformation. Ashmoo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing AD

What if we removed AD from the dates in the article to avoid AD/CE conflicts? - AD occurs only 5 times in the article - as the era is clear in all cases, AD or CE are not really necessary and can be removed without creating confusion - seeking concensus before making the change in accordance with WP:ERA - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Written with lack of real understanding

Although this is a good lemma it lacks real understanding. This lack of understanding is signified by the use of the word "Mysticism". Since above all else (Neo)-Platonism is the contrary of Mysticism. It is "Realism" in optima-forma. It is a logical system off understanding reality. Displace the word "God" with the word "Reality", in acceptance that: There is only ONE reality. There exist a material and a non-material part of reality. And that our perception off reality is just a very partial view. . A mystique (as most "uneducated" believers are) is like a fish that does not realize he all-ready swims in the ocean and in effect even is a small part off it. In his effort to become one with God he tends to search God outside off reality, and thus will never really find God (He finds a surrogate in his believes). . A (Neo)-platonist is a realist. He is like a fish that can see the ocean despite it's transparency, and understands he is an integral part of it. He does not need to search for God. He does not need to try to become one with God, since he realizes he all-ready is. . By the way Jezus clearly was a Platonist (Educated as he was by three wise men)!77.60.121.89 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

— do you have citations to reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) to support this? If not it is original research (WP:NOR) — Epinoia (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The term 'Neoplatonism'

In the article it says:

'According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The term 'neoplatonism' is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing 'periods' in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition."[9]'

However, given it appears as early as 1775 in 'Pamphlets, Religious: Miscellaneous', Volume 8, p.6, which is from the University of Michigan, maybe it is an invention of American scholarship and not European scholarship. I don't know where the pamphlets originated from...maybe they are from Europe and collected together by the University of Michigan.

ref: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NqnNAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Neoplatonism

Any thoughts welcome.

Please use this page to talk about it.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

PS: Ref for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2008/entries/plotinus/

Darylprasad (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Capitalized the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism'; 'Neoplatonist(s)' and 'Neoplatonic'

Hi

I have capitalized the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism'; 'Neoplatonist(s)' and 'Neoplatonic' to conform to authoritative 20th and 21st century scholarship: Dillon and Gerson 'Neoplatonic Philosophy' 2004; Remes 'Neoplatonism' 2008; Dodds, 'Select Passages Illustrating Neoplatonism' 1923 and Lloyd 1998 1990 'The Anatomy of Neoplatonism'

If you have thoughts on this matter, please discuss them here.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Entire Artice

Hi

The entire article is in a state of flux at the moment. I am trying to get the right structure. If I alter it in a way which regular editors don't like, feel free to change it right back. I am still trying to get a handle of what is really important to the regular editors.

I anticipate I will be doing a lot of work on this article, so if I do something you dont like or change the structure in a way you don't like, feel free to change it right back.

Regards Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

'Classical Neoplatonism' and 'major periods of Neoplatonism'

Hi,

There is no mention of the phrase 'Classical Neoplatonism' and 'major periods of Neoplatonism' or 'Three distinct phases in classical Neoplatonism' or even 'distinct phases of Neoplatonism' in the following authoritative works:

. Nikulin 2019 Neoplatonism In Late Antiquity

. Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism

. Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism

. Remes 2008 Neoplatonism

. Dillon & Gerson 2004 Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings

. Lloyd 1998 1990 The Anatomy of Neoplatonism

. Gersh 1986 Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition Vols. 1 & 2

. Lovejoy 1933 The Great Chain of Being

. Dodds 1923 Select Passages Illustrating Neoplatonism

. Whittaker 1918 The Neo-Platonists

. Bigg 1895 Neopltonism

. and in Google book searches

The only mention I can see is the ref in this article from: Sarah Klitenic Wear https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195389661/obo-9780195389661-0201.xml

The phrases are highly unusual as is the grouping.

To conform to 19th, 20th and 21st scholarship, the entire topic will need to be reworded so as to remove the grouping and the term 'classical Neoplatonism'

If anyone has an authoritative reference that has a reference to 'major periods of Neoplatonism' and the phrase 'classical Neoplatonism' could you please let me know.

It seems that Sarah Klitenic Wear is on her own here.

Regards Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The term 'Neoplatonism'

Hi'

I have just spent five hours editing the topic The term 'Neoplatonism'.

I hope the editor appreciates that I have retained the gist of their argument, whilst not retaining unnecessarily verbose and repetitive arguments.

I have cited uncited sentences with 20th and 21st century citations and have had to modify sentences, keeping intact the essence of the argument. I have also added text and citations that reveal when and by whom the conceptual foundation of the division between Ancient Platonism into Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism was cemented. In doing that, I replaced a 1974 cited paragraph which was uncertain about the source of the conceptual foundation of the division, and replaced it with text and two 21st century citations that reveal the source of the division.

I do not remove text lightly and have made very strenuous efforts to keep the editors argument intact, to cite those sentences which were uncited, not an easy task considering the complexity of the argument. I hope that I have made the editors argument clearer, more verifiable and more up to date.

It is a good argument, that is why I spent so much time on it.

Thanks

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist' and 'Neopythagorean'

Hi,

I have re-capitalized the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist' and 'Neopythagorean'. This conforms to 20th and 21st century authoritative scholarship.

For the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist', see:

. Nikulin 2019 Neoplatonism In Late Antiquity,

. Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism,

. Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism,

. Remes 2008 Neoplatonism,

. Dillon & Gerson 2004 Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings,

. Lloyd 1998 1990 The Anatomy of Neoplatonism

. Gersh 1986 Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition Vols. 1 & 2;

. Gerson 2004 What is Platonism,

. Sorabji 2005 The Philosophy of the Commentators 200-600 AD,

. Harrington 2004 Sacred Place in Early Medieval Neoplatonism,

. Harris 1981 Neoplatonism and Indian Thought,

. Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism

. Merlan 1968 [1953] From Platonism To Neoplatonism

. Wallis 1992 Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

. Ahbel-Rappe 2010 Damascius’ Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles

. MacKenna 1956 Plotinus The Enneads

. O’Neill 1971 Proclus Alcibiades I

. Baltzly 2007, 2009 and 2013 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vols. 3, 4 and 5

. Calma 2020 Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes Vol. 2

For the term 'Neopythagorean', see:

. Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism,

. Remes 2008 Neoplatonism,

. Gersh 1986 Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition Vols. 1 & 2,

. Jackson Lycos & Tarrant 1998 Olympiodorus Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias,

. Tarrant 2007 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vol. 1,

. Morrow 1992 1970 Proclus A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements,

. Runia & Share 2008 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vol. 2,

. d’Hoine & Martijn 2017 All from One, A Guide To Proclus

And others.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of that is relevant. See MOS:ISMCAPS Teishin (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Darylprasad, the correct place to discuss this is here, not my talk page, so that other editors of this subject may more readily be involved. Teishin (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Teishin

Neoplatonism is a religion (see Oxford dictionary) and at the very least an officially recognized sect (for the last 280 years, ever since Germanic scholarship coined the term in 1742) and therefore it is relevant MOS:ISMCAPS: "Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter."

Also, if you remove the capitalization you are effectively going against major authoritative works, which is very relevant.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Darylprasad Neoplatonism is a philosophy, not an organized religion (see SEP's entry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/ ). Per Wikipedia's MOS, Wikipedia as a standardized practice, goes against major authoritative works. What is relevant here is MOS and MOS alone. Teishin (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for allowing me to discuss this matter.

Point 1

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

The significant views published by reliable sources in the authoritative list I provided you says that Neoplatonism and the like should be capitalized. Could you please provide me with a list of authoritative publications that do not have "Neoplatonism" capitalized?

Point 2

Even Stanford capitalize Neoplatonism and the like.

Point 3

The article you cite { https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism} does not explicitly say that Neoplatonism is not an organized religion. What it does say is:

'In effect, they [the Neoplatonists] absorbed, appropriated, and creatively harmonized almost the entire Hellenic tradition of philosophy, religion, and even literature'

Point 4

Wikipedia says:

Organized religion:

"Organized religion, also known as institutional religion, is religion in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established."

The belief system in Neoplatonism is systematically arranged and formally established. Just read some of the scholarship I have listed for you. And so are the rituals systematically arranged and formally established. I could give you authoritative references on those too if you like.

Point 5

Wikipedia says:

Religion:

"there no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion"

So MOS:ISMCAPS is skating on thin ice.

Point 6

The Oxford definition of Neoplatonism is:

"a philosophical and religious system developed by the followers of Plotinus in the 3rd century AD."

Could you please be a little bit more sensitive, as I am a Neoplatonist, and do not like my religion being treated just as a philosophy. We have been persecuted since 529 AD.

I have given you 5 authoritative citations in the first sentence about Neoplatonism being a religious system, over and above being just a philosophy, and two authoritative citations about Neoplatonic theology.

Point 7

And, if as you say, "Wikipedia as a standardized practice, goes against major authoritative works." then it is doing original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. If what you say is true, please provide me with the Wiki policy.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: What about "Platonism" and the like.

PPS: Maybe I will write a topic on the article about this. Darylprasad (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Darylprasad, the answer to every point you bring up is is the Wiki policy that I have previously cited: MOS:ISMCAPS. This is a style issue. It has nothing to do with NPOV, or what style the SEP or other sources use, or with the idea that this is somehow original research, or that you or other people follow this philosophy as a religion, or whether it is or is not a religion. If you read the older discussion of this on my talk page you'll see that it's not even a style I personally approve of, that I have argued that it should be changed, and that I have proposed a guideline that would allow the capitalization you prefer. Unfortunately, this proposal went nowhere. We're stuck with having to follow MOS:ISMCAPS. Because of that, the capitalization style used in the article needs to be restored to what it was before you made your changes. Teishin (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#Ancient_Greek_philosophy_and_MOS:DOCTCAPS . Teishin (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, if you'd like to make a proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters for a capitalization convention that would allow the capitalization of "neoplatonism," such as the rule I proposed in the past for capitalizing the names of Hellenistic philosophies, due to the long convention elsewhere of capitalizing them, I'd be interested in participating and likely supporting your proposal. Teishin (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Teishin,

Thank you for your support, but I am very busy reading Proclus and in breaks writing this 'Neoplatonism' article as a way of revising some of the history of philosophy pertinent to Proclus' Commentary on Timaeus.

I would prefer to stay out of Wikipedia policy making, however, If you want to make a proposal, and I do think that would be a very good idea, I will back you up with any relevant scholarship you require for your arguments. Just put a note on my talk page or here if you like and I will see what I can do.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already made a proposal once before on this that didn't go anywhere do to lack of support. Another attempt should come from another person. In the meantime, we're stuck following MOS. Teishin (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Teishin,

OK. I have started a new section on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters called 'Capitalization of the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist' and 'Neopythagorean', which just simply states my first message on this thread. Let us see what happens.

Thanks for the link to the Style Guide.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Teishin,

Unless there is a change in the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Capital letters, on the grounds of the sheer amount of scholarship that capitalizes the terms: 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', and 'Neoplatonist', then the terms should REMAIN LOWERCASE, as far as I can reasonably and logically determine.

My reasoning is based on the following:

Wikipedia:manual Of Style/capital Letters:

"Names of ORGANIZED RELIGIONS (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter."

For the word 'RELIGION' Neoplatonism satisfies the definitions in the Oxford (British-English), Merriam-Webster (American-English), Collins Dictionary (Australian-English) and Macmillan (American-English and British-English)

For the word 'ORGANIZED' Neoplatonism satisfies ONLY the Oxford (British-English) definition.

Hence Neoplatonism is an 'organized religion' ONLY in the British-English sense.

And that is that.

Back to work.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

History of Neoplatonism

Hi

I have created a new topic called 'History of Neoplatonism' into which is incorporated the text of 'Prominent Neoplatonists' and 'Classical Neoplatonism'.

This structure enables the reader to quickly and easily reference Neoplatonists in the various centuries. I think it is a intuitive way to start structuring the article and organizing data and it makes it very clear what centuries you are reading about under each heading.

Neoplatonism is a complex topic, the simpler the TOC the easier it will be for readers to access information.

Under this topic there will be separate paragraphs for important Neoplatonists. So there is much work to do.

The idea of the topic comes from: Elsee 1908 "Neoplatonism in Relation to Christianity", where there is a chapter called 'The History of Neoplatonism'

Note: I have note removed any text, just changed its organization.

Any comments welcome, but please respond on this page.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

PS: All arguments about the term Neoplatonism being an 18th century Germanic construction will need to put under the topic "The term 'Neoplatonism'" which currently precedes the topic 'History of Neoplatonism'.

Darylprasad (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A closely related topic that I've encountered is how neoplatonism should be classified historically with respect to Ancient Greek philosophy. A point of contention is whether it should be considered Hellenistic, with one side saying that it isn't, because it arose after the Hellenistic period. The other side says it is culturally Hellenistic and derives from the Classical era. Teishin (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a current movement, like there is for Contemporary Stoicism? Teishin (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Working on Article

Hi

I have started by rearranging the headings and shortened heading titles for chronological reasons and simplicity.

I have added much text and many citations to the topic '1st to 2nd century'

There is so much work still to do in this article.

I will be working at it for some time.

Regards Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi

I have just been informed of the following from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

"Have you read the last paragraph of MOS:ISMCAPS, which says, "Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or 'schools' of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name" (my emphasis), and "Nevertheless, watch for idiom, especially a usage that has become disconnected from the original doctrinal/systemic referent and is often lower-cased in sources (in which case, do not capitalize): Platonic idealism but a platonic relationship"? Words like Platonism and Aristotelianism are derived from proper names and should be capitalized. Also Stoic in the philosophical sense is conventionally capitalized to distinguish it from stoic in the general "impassive" sense. Please don't go around changing capitalization in articles unless you are sure that what you're doing is in accordance with the Manual of Style."

Well that's nice to know.

I'll think I'll leave changing capitalization to the experts.

At least the article has now been checked by an expert in the field of Wikipedia capitalization.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Work Continues

Dear All,

The next topic I will be working on will be '3rd to 4th century' where there will be a summary of the prominent philosophers like in the topic '1st to 2nd century'

I am now rid of the desire to enter into any further capitalization debates and will leave that to the Wikipedia experts in that field, who are very knowledgeable.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ammonius Saccas

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the following text:

"The similarities between neoplatonism and Indian philosophy, particularly Samkhya, have led several authors to suggest an Indian influence in its founding, particularly on Ammonius Saccas."

The fist citation: "J. Bussanich. The roots of Platonism and Vedanta. International Journal of Hindu Studies. January 2005, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1-2"

does not support the text it purports to cite, see https://www.academia.edu/247838/The_Roots_of_Platonism_and_Vedanta,

and so it has been removed.

With respect to the second citation: "Harris 1981 Neoplatonism and Indian Thought"

Harris 1981 himself says on p. 308:

"I am here leaving out of account the improbable thesis of Ernst Benz (Indische Einflüsse auf die frühchristliche Theologie (Wiesbaden, 1951), pp. 197-202) that Ammonius Sakkas, Plotinus's teacher, was himself an Indian. See the refutations by H. Dörrie (Hermes LXXXIII (1955), 440 ff.) and Schlette, op. cit., p. 135. "

and so does not support and of the text it purports to cite, and so it has been removed.

With respect to the third citation: "Staal 1961 Advaita and Neoplatonism" (see https://dbnl.org/tekst/staa009adva01_01/staa009adva01_01.pdf)

There is a discussion about Sāṁkhya and Neoplatonism however the conclusion of that discussion is on p. 249 where Staal himself says

"Our general conclusion is that it will be the task of future research on the question of Indian influence on Neoplatonism to find aspects of Neoplatonism which cannot be understood against the background of the Greek tradition. In the light of recent research, however, where the six centuries between Plato and Plotinus are no longer neglected, it seems unlikely that such aspects can be found."

and so does not support and of the text it purports to cite, and so it has been removed.

The removal of the three citations leaves the entire sentence uncited and I cannot find any other scholarship to backup this view so the sentence has been removed.

What has been added is the following:

"The hypothesis that Ammonius was Indian is improbable[74] and any Indian influence on neoplatonism was thought unlikely in the mid 20th century; however, notable 21st century scholarship has opened major areas of research in that field" with citations (see above) from "Harris 1981 Neoplatonism and Indian Thought" and "Staal 1961 Advaita and Neoplatonism", which are two of the citations used to previously support the opposite argument, and citations from Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism.

(2)

With respect to the text:

"Both Christians (see Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen) and pagans (see Porphyry and Plotinus) claimed him a teacher and founder of the neoplatonic system." which cites: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/

The citation does not mention the word "Christians" and does not say that pagans "claimed him [Ammonius Saccas] a teacher and founder of the neoplatonic system." and the links to Wiki articles, if they back-up the sentence, are circular references. The citation does say that "Rightly or wrongly, the Egyptian-born Plotinus (204/5–270) is commonly regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism." Which has already been said in the introduction of the article.

Hence the sentence is incorrectly cited which amounts to having no citation and the information is incorrect, with regards to authoritative scholarship, therefore the sentence has been removed.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Plotinus

Dear All

(1)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"His metaphysical writings later inspired numerous Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Gnostic metaphysicians and mystics over the centuries."

Whilst the uncited text might be true, it is too broad a statement to leave uncited. As I edit the "Influence" topic of the article, the gist of the uncited text will become clear, however for now I have removed it. There is already the CITED text in the first sentence which says:

"The 3rd century Egyptian philosopher Plotinus was the founder of neoplatonism, which has had a profound influence on Middle Ages philosophy, and more broadly, on Western philosophy."

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED paragraph:

"Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents"."

For now I have MOVED it to the topic "Doctrines" as the topic "History" is for broad sketches of the life of philosophers and maybe a few short CITED sentences about their doctrines., but certainly not an entire paragraph that goes into detail about one specific doctrine. It will be edited and cited when I edit the topic "Doctrines."

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Porphyry

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the UNCITED sentence:

"After Plotinus' and his student Porphyry Aristotle's (non-biological) works entered the curriculum of Platonic thought."

The sentence is more about Aristotle than Porphyry, and has little to do with neoplatonism. It is not really a a key factor in discussions Porphyry's activities and just seems to confuse matters unnecessarily by introducing Aristotle into the picture. There are far more relevant activities to mention about Porphyry in what will be a compact summary. For these reasons it has been removed.

(2)

With respect to the CITED sentence:

"The commentaries of this group seek to harmonize Plato, Aristotle, and, often, the Stoics."

The "citation" does not give a page number of a 280 page Dutch work called Beknopte Geschiedenis Van De Wijsbegeerte (Brief History Of Philosophy) and so of what use is the citation. Further, the very first cited sentence of the topic "History" says:

"Neoplatonism synthesized ideas from earlier philosophical and religious traditions, namely Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, and it is that synthesis that explains the central difference between Plato and neoplatonism."

So I think the Article has already covered the harmonization of " Plato, Aristotle, and, often, the Stoics." The sentence in question is now general repetition under a topic that is supposed to specifically discuss Porphyry, and for those reasons it has been removed. There are far more relevant activities to mention specifically about Porphyry in what will be a compact summary.

(3)

With respect to the UNCITED sentence:

"Some works of neoplatonism were attributed to Plato or Aristotle.

This sentence and its citation have been moved to the topic "Further Reading" as it more relevant there. It is not relevant to a compact summary of a topic about Porphyry.

(4)

With respect to CITED the sentence:

"De Mundo, for instance, is thought not to be the work of a 'pseudo-Aristotle' though this remains debatable."

Well, that is wonderful, but what has that to do with Porphyry? Further, if the work is thought "not to be the work of a 'pseudo-Aristotle'" then logically you would think it to be the work of Aristotle. But this Article is about neoplatonism and is not a discussion about the authorship of works by Aristotle. There is far more pertinent information to mention specifically about Porphyry in what will be a compact summary.

For those that are interested the citation is "De Mundo, Loeb Classical Library, Introductory Note, D. J. Furley". I hope you can find use for the text and citation in an article about the authorship of works by Aristotle.

(5)

With respect to the UNCITED quote:

"He [Porphyry] famously said, "The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect."

Recent studies by E. DePalma Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution" (Ithaca: 2012). and commentary on those studies by Magny 2014 "Porphyry in Fragments" p.8-9 suggest that this quote is too one-sided a picture of the complex context of Porphyry's writings against the Christians, in his work Against the Christians. It only highlights his view against Christians and does not balance it with his views against the 'pagans' [the term "used solely by Christians to identify ‘the Other’, has been challenged" Magny 2014 "Porphyry in Fragments" p.9].

Further, the work Against the Christians cited by the Suda is likely a Byzantine summary of compositions by Porphyry that was circulated after the original compositions were burnt by a decree of Theodosius II in 448 AD. See Berchman 2005 "Porphyry Against The Christians" p. 3

Given all that, it seems fair to remove the uncited quote so as to retain balance.

(6)

Similarly, the UNCITED text:

"Porphyry is known as an opponent of Christianity and as a defender of paganism"

Neglects that Porphyry also wrote against the school of Iamblichus [regarded as a 'pagan'] see E. DePalma Digeser, "A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution" (Ithaca: 2012). and commentary on those studies by Magny 2014 "Porphyry in Fragments" p.8-9.

Also the term 'pagan' is "used solely by Christians to identify ‘the Other’, has been challenged" Magny 2014 "Porphyry in Fragments" p.9

With that information in mind, the text in question has been removed.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Iamblichus

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to UNCITED the text:

"is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings"

This statement is far too vague and seems to be pejorative.

For the moment, it has been replaced with:

"The world has intermediatory beings"

However, the entire UNCITED paragraph will probably be moved to the topic 'Doctrines' where it will be cited and modified as necessary.

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED textL:

"He influenced the direction taken by later Neoplatonic philosophy."

That text has been removed and in its place is the CITED text:

"He is hailed by some scholars as a superb and brilliant metaphysician who further advanced Platonism, but discredited by other scholars for being obscure and introducing all sorts of superstition into his texts."

(3)

The UNCITED text:

"In Iamblichus' system, the realm of divinities stretched from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul, in fact, descended into matter and became "embodied" as human beings. The world has intermediatory beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings. Iamblichus had salvation as his final goal (see henosis). The embodied soul was to return to divinity by performing certain rites, or theurgy, literally, 'divine-working'."

has been MOVED to the topic "Celestial hierarchy" where it is far more relevant. The text will be edited and cited when I work on that topic.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hypatia

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the CITED text:

"...her murder by a fanatical mob of Coptic Christian Parabalani monks..."

which cites: "Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) by Maria Dzielska (author), F. Lyra (translator), Harvard University Press; reprint edition (October 1, 1996), ISBN 978-0674437760, pp. 38–39."

The pages 38–39 do not mention 'Coptic' or 'Parabalani' or 'Christian', nor does it say anything about the murder of Hypatia. What is does discuss is Orestes relationship with Hypatia and speculations on who attended her lectures.

Hence, such an accusation is grossly unfair to the Coptic Christian Parabalani monks and damages their reputation, and so that text HAS BEEN REMOVED.

Moreover, the book does not mention the word 'Coptic' and only references 'Parabalani' in the bibliography.

Here is the link to Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) by Maria Dzielska (author), F. Lyra (translator) on Google Books:

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Hypatia_of_Alexandria.html?id=UCkgLBCh2m0C&redir_esc=y

I will keep the citation and use it to cite Orestes relationship with Hypatia

(2)

Also the UNCITED text:

"The extent of Cyril's personal involvement in her murder remains a matter of scholarly debate."

suggests there are such accusations made of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, for which there is NO CITATION and grossly damages his reputation unfairly. And so the text HAS BEEN REMOVED.

(3)

With respect to the deletion by an editor of CITED text about the 2009 film Agora:

Whilst I agree that the location of the text was most-likely inaccurate, it could have been relocated to "Influence/Contemporary/Fiction" where it now sits. I have endeavoured to pay respect to all cited and UNCITED text in this article with comments on why they have been removed or where they have been incorporated. It was only recently (24 April 2022), when agreeing to a request made by an editor to limit my updates, that I have not explained in detail why text has been removed or where it has been incorporated. I would appeciate it if other editors would put a sort statement on the Talk page topic of any text they are removing. That would save me a little bit of time.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proclus

Dear All,

With respect to the UNCITED paragraph:

"Proclus set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato. The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, called henads, between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai or taxeis) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things. The henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity and to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity."

The paragraph has been MOVED to the L1 topic 'Henads' under the heading 'Doctrines' where it is far more relevant as the L2 topic 'Proclus', where it was, is more of a broad sketch of Proclus' life and not a discussion of his complex doctrine of Henads.

I will edit and cite the paragraph when I work on the topic 'Henads'...probably soon, as I will be working on the topic 'Doctrines' after I finish the first version of the topic 'History'

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Doctrines

Dear All

I have started working on the topic 'Doctrines'

(1)

With respect to the first sentence, which is UNCITED:

"The Enneads of Plotinus are the primary and classical document of neoplatonism."

I have tried to keep the gist of the text with the following lead-in that is cited:

"The Enneads of Plotinus are the first full expression of an interpretation of Plato that continued through the key neoplatonic philosophers, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius."

I will be continuing in this manner throughout this complex topic. I will first endevour to cite any uncited text with modifications as necessary. I will be using the current text as the spine of the topic and intend to flesh it out with elaborations and quotations to elucidate the topics.

Any block quotes added will stem directly from references found in the cited text or will be an endeavour to elucidate some complex doctrine.

All that will take a while, and I will keep you updated at regular intervals.

Note: For citing text in the Enneads, e.g. Ennead 1.6.8.25-26, I am using the nomenclature used in the latest 2018 translation of 'The Enneads' edited by Lloyd P. Gerson and translated by: George Boys-Stones, John M. Dillon, Lloyd P. Gerson, R.A.H. King, Andrew Smith, James Wilberding, and Ruhr-Universität Bochum. The block quotes will be from Guthrie 1918 for copyright reasons. Guthrie 1918 is a wonderful translation.

Regards

Daryl

PS: The year of some citations will have a letter after the year, e.g.: 1918a, because they have more than one volume, and since I may have to use them in sfns, I will probably be citing the other volumes as 1918b, 1918c, etc for ease of reference...The older 20th century citations will normally be used for block quotes, as the books are no longer copyrighted.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The One

Dear All,

(1)

With repect to the CITED sentence:

"Even though neoplatonism primarily circumscribes the thinkers who are now labeled neoplatonists and not their ideas, there are some ideas that are common to neoplatonic systems; for example, the monistic idea that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One"."

which has the citation "The metaphysics of the One by Halfwassen" from Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, p. 182-199

First:

The chapter in the book is excellent, and I have already used a citation from it in the topic 'Doctrines'

However:

Whilst the gist of the cited sentence is most likely correct, the specifically cited chapter, pages 182-199, does not mention the words "neoplatonism" or "neoplatonists". The chapter mainly talks about Plotinus.

"Neoplatonism" is mentioned twice as follows:

(1) p. 185: "The absolute nature of our presupposition of unity has a series of metaphysically significant implications, which form the structural principles of Neoplatonic philosophy"

That sentence on p. 185 talks about "OUR PRESUPPOSITION OF UNITY" which means ALL HUMANS who assume a concept of unity.

(2) p. 189: "What one says of God is insufficient for me: that which is beyond divinity is my life and my light”, says Angelus Silesius in terms of Neoplatonic negative theology (in The Cherubinic Pilgrim: Angelus Silesius 1986: I.15)"

"monistic" is mentioned once as follows:

(1) p. 186: "Plotinus arrives by this means at his monistic interpretation of Plato’s theory of principles with all its bipolarity of unity and multiplicity which determines Being"

Therefore:

There is NO GENERAL discussion on "neoplatonic thinkers" and "ideas that are common to neoplatonic systems", if anything, there is a much broader generalization to ALL HUMANS with a "presupposition of unity".

Summary:

Whilst I understand that the current text on Wiki might be accurate, which I believe it to be, to a certain degree, it is not a summary of the cited pages 182-199 by Halfwassen from Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism.

Further, as the text on p. 185 by Halfwassen is a very broad discussion, as it talks about ALL HUMANS who assume a concept of unity, it does not suit a lead-in as it just seems too much of a generalization to start off with.

Hence the text under question WILL BE REMOVED

I also understand the need for a general lead-in that says something about the One in relation to all neoplatonism, but that is not easy to find. Let's just stick to Plotinus for the moment. That is more than enough for this article.

(2)

With respect to the CITED sentence:

"For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is "the One", an utterly simple, ineffable, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source of the Universe and the teleological end of all existing things."

With the citation: https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/147/abstract/pagan-monotheism-and-pagan-cult

and archived on: https://web.archive.org/web/20170506035740/https://classicalstudies.org/annual-meeting/147/abstract/pagan-monotheism-and-pagan-cult

The cited article does not mention Plotinus nor 'the One', only mentions 'principle' with relation to Stoics, and that very briefly, does not mention the word 'simple', nor 'ineffable', nor 'unknowable', nor 'subsistence', nor 'creative', nor 'source', and refers to the word 'Universe' in relation to Stoics, and Plutarch, does not mention the word 'teleological'

Nor does the reference discuss neoplatonism, as it is primarily about Stoics, God, gods and Plutarch, and hence does not accurately convey what it purports to cite and so HAS BEEN REMOVED

NOTE: the CITED text in the article covers most of the UNCITED text

"His doctrine of the One builds on earlier doctrines, notably from Plato's Parmenides and Republic, but its depth transcends earlier endeavours to postulate a totally simple, ineffable first cause of everything.[264] His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause, having no division, that is beyond being and non-being, and there is nothing, after having named it, that needs to be said about the One, or the Good.[266]"

and the CITED text in the topic 'Doctrines'

"The third hypostasis is Soul, which is generated by Nous, and it is where temporal beings are generated and embodied, and whose ultimate destiny is a return to their source by recovering their unity with the One.[256]"

covers the 'teleological' part of the UNCITED text.

(3)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are "the One" or "the Good"."

has BEEN REPLACED with the CITED text and quotation:

Text:

"His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause that is beyond being, as there is nothing, after naming it, that can be said about the One, or the Good." Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, pp. 99–100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.

Quotation:

"Other beings, indeed, aspire to the Good, as the goal of their activity; but the Good itself has need of nothing; and therefore possesses nothing but itself. After having named it, nothing should be added thereto by thought; for, to add some thing, is to suppose that [the One] needs this attribute."—Plotinus, Enneads 3.8.11.10–12" Guthrie 1918b, p. 549, Vol. 2, iii.8 Of Contemplation.

(4)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"In Plotinus' model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent "hypostases" or substances: Nous and Soul (psyché)."

This is already stated in the CITED text in the topic "Doctrines":

"For Plotinus, the first hypothesis of the Parmenides, at 137c4, is referred to as the One, and is the first hypostasis that is the transcendent source of all.[256] The second hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides is referred to by Plotinus as Intellect, or Nous, and is the second hypostasis that arises when the One comprehends itself giving rise to Being, which is an intelligible realm of eternal intellects each comprehending all the other intellects.[256] The third hypostasis is Soul, which is generated by Nous, and it is where temporal beings are generated and embodied, and whose ultimate destiny is a return to their source by recovering their unity with the One.[256]"

which is cited by Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. xiv, Prolegomenon.

(5)

With respect to the text:

"Although neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil."

that text HAS BEEN MOVED to the topic 'Evil' where it is more relevant.

(6)

With respect to the UNCITED text

"Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being."

that text has been incorporated into the CITED text:

"His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause, having no division, that is beyond being and non-being, and there is nothing, after having named it, that needs to be said about the One, or the Good." Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, pp. 99–100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.

Note: the elaboration of the cited text is still supported by the citation.

Note: in the uncited text, the phrase "no division, multiplicity, nor distinction;" can be reduced to "no division" as division implies multiplicity generated from the One, and so the term 'multiplicity' is redundant. Also, as the One is totally transcendent, it is distinct from everything else, so the term 'nor distinction' is inaccurate.

Side note: To get multiplicity from the One, Neoplatonists use the doctrine of Henads...see 'Multiplicity from The one' and 'Henads' in the Proclus Article.

(7)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being."

(7a)

The first part of the sentence that says: "The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist"

is not accurate as: "Plotinus' doctrines led him to the conclusion that the One...can be known through its effects." Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, p. 100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.

so we know the One exists, or more technically (Taylor), subsists.

Note: Contemporary scholars are less rigorous with the word "existence", and accordingly the article reflects that looseness in terminology.

(7b)

The second part of the UNCITED text:

"The One is so simple that it cannot even be said...to be a being."

has already been said in the CITED text

"His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause, having no division, that is beyond being and non-being, and there is nothing, after having named it, that needs to be said about the One, or the Good." Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, pp. 99–100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.

and hence by 7a and 7b the UNCITED text HAS BEEN REMOVED

(8)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents"."

is inaccurate as the CITED text in the article says:

"Plotinus' doctrines led him to the conclusion that the One is beyond thought, knowledge and language, but can be known through its effects." Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, p. 100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.

Note: Because of its effects, the One is known to exist, or more technically (Taylor), subsist.

Side Note: Contemporary scholars are less rigorous with the word "existence", and accordingly the article reflects that looseness in terminology.

Technical note: the phrase "prior to all existents" is also not accurate, as the One and second hypostasis, Intellect, are non-temporal, non-spatial, and non-physical. The One transcends the second hypostasis. It is only in the third hypostasis, Souls, that there is a notion of temporality.

The claim made by the UNCITED statement is very broad, seems not to be accurate by the citation (Emilsson 2017) we have in the article, and is very unusual, and without a citation for support, it HAS BEEN REMOVED.

Side Note: Only when the souls are embodied, or more technically, enmattered (Dillon), is there any notion of spatiality and physicality.

(9)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them."

Point 1: The One is not 'infinite', it is One. In Neoplatonic doctrines, Bound and Infinity, or technically, Limit and Limitlessness (Dillon), are the first Dyad of principles that are caused by the One.

Point 2: The rest of the text amounts to saying that the One is beyond material objects, beyond our concepts and is beyond being, which the article already says in CITED text:

"His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause, having no division, that is beyond being and non-being, and there is nothing, after having named it, that needs to be said about the One, or the Good.[265]"

and

"His doctrines led him to the conclusion that the One is beyond thought, knowledge and language, but can be known through its effects.[269] In Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines, the One, by generating the second hypostasis Intellect, or Nous, implies that a unique mentality is present in the One; however, our concepts of mentality imply plurality and are hence unsuited to the comprehension of the mentality of the One.[269] "

and so the UNCITED text HAS BEEN REMOVED.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Henads

Dear All,

The UNCITED text:

"Proclus set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato. The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, called henads , between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation ( seirai or taxeis ) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things. The henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity and to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity."

has been INCORPORATED into the article and CITED in the following manner:

(1)

The UNCITED text:

"Proclus set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato."

is INCORPORATED and CITED in the first sentence of the topic 'Proclus' in the following way:

"The 5th century philosopher Proclus elaborated on Plotinus' neoplatonism with an intricate view of the unseen world[194] and also provided a systematic allegorization of the dialogues of Plato.[195]"

(2)

The UNCITED text:

"The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, called henads , between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation ( seirai or taxeis ) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things."

is INCORPORATED and CITED in the topic 'Henads' in the following way:

"The complex theology[276] of henads, elaborated by Proclus, imports plurality into the first hypostasis while leaving intact the absolute unity of the One.[273] Proclus' neoplatonic doctrine of henads asserts that: henads are individual,[277] limited in number,[277] are more unified than the beings in the second hypostasis of Nous,[277] are transcendent sources of plurality without internal differentiation,[278] are unifying principles, heads of chains of causation at the summit of the second hypostasis of Nous and the third hypostases of Soul,[279] and are allegorically represented by characteristic properties of particular gods in Greek mythology, which are then reflected in different levels of reality. For example, the generic attributes[280] of the monad Helios, progresses (where progressions imply likeness[281]) into the material universe through a series of causation resulting in the Sun itself, people with a sun-like soul, sun-like animals, e.g. a rooster, sun-like plants, e.g. heliotropes and stones like sunstones.[282] "

(3)

The UNCITED text:

"The henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity"

is INCORPORATED and CITED in the topic 'Henads' in the following way:

"The complex theology[276] of henads, elaborated by Proclus, imports plurality into the first hypostasis while leaving intact the absolute unity of the One.[273]"

(4)

The UNCITED text:

"[The henads serve]...to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity."

has been REMOVED as I am having trouble finding a citation for something like it. And am not really sure of the accuracy of the statement.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Emanation and Double Activity

Dear All,

The UNCITED text:

"From the One emanated the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser beings."

has been INCORPORATED in the CITED text:

"For Plotinus, his neoplatonic doctrines of emanation and double activity explain how things come to be from the One, and hence they permeate through all his doctrines in his work Enneads.[272]"

Note : As the One is absolutely transcendent, as has been explained in the topics 'Doctrines' and 'The One', there is no need for the slightly negative term 'lesser beings'

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Neoplatonists, including Proclus, placed souls as intermediaries between the One and Intellect above and nature below. Soul, unlike the higher entities, exists in time and space. Its intermediate position meant that it could rise to higher-order intellectual thought with the Intellect and also descend into and interact with material nature"

and

Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism p. 124, 126-127; Siorvanes 1996 Proclus p. 56]

Note 1:

The TOC keeps the word "Nous" in preference to "Intellect". Here I have left unchanged the heading 'Nous', in favour of the more technical term 'Intellect' For this see :

Morrow & Dillon 1992 [1987] Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides p. xvii, xxvi, 6;

Griffin 2015 Olympiodorus Life of Plato and On Plato First Alcibiades 1-9 p. 11;

Berg 2001 Proclus' Hymns p.26;

Armstrong 1962 Plotinus p. 27]

Note2:

the topics

2.3.1 Intermediate Beings

2.3.2 Evil

2.3.3 Return to the One

in Neoplatonic doctrines are to do with souls, and so they have been moved under the topic 'Soul'.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nous

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things."

(A) If Nous was a PERFECT image of the One, it would be exactly like the One, which it is not. If it was, it would mean that there would be two Ones, which in Plotinus' doctrines and other Neoplatonic doctrines is not the case. Iamblichus is the odd one out, as he posits two Ones to get plurality from the One, but this is very unusual in Neoplatonism.

(B) Nous is also NOT the archetype of all existing things, the One is, as Nous exists and emanated from the One, its archetype.

Hence because of A, the statement is highly unusual, and because of B, it is inaccurate, and so and HAS BEEN REMOVED.

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as a derivative, it is different."

That text has been INORPORATED into the following CITED lead-in:

"In neoplatonism, the second hypostasis called Nous, or Intellect, that emanates from the first hypostasis called the One, is a grade of reality, or level of existence, that is different from the One because of its plurality.[301] For Plotinus, as it is the first emanation from the One, Nous is as unified as anything plural can be.[301] Nous is a locus of real beings; known as Platonic Ideas, or Forms; and simultaneously, a locus of perfect knowledge.[301] A fundamental aspect of Plotinus' doctrine of Nous is that being, or essence, and knowledge, coalesce in Nous.[301] Without the absolute simplicity of the One, three logically distinct things are evident in Nous, the thinker, the act of thought, and the object of thought, each requiring the others, and forming a unity.[302] "

(3)

With respect to the CITED text:

"What Plotinus understands by Nous, is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind, while also being pure intellect itself"

That text has been INORPORATED into the CITED text:

"Plotinus held a view that the highest part of a human soul is perpetual intuitive[307] and can attain unification with Nous, and hence unification with the major gods of Greek theology.[308] However, Iamblichus and later neoplatonists[309] downgraded Plotinus' position, as it would enable a theurgist to manipulate the major gods, and instead limited a human soul's contact to intermediate beings in the hypostasis of Soul, which in turn 'opened the door'[308] to a culture that Plotinus had condemned in his treatise Against the Gnostics.[310][308]"

(4)

With respect to the CITED text:

"Nous is the most critical component of idealism, neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism."

with the original Note:

"Schopenhauer wrote of this neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)."[311]

Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul."[312] It is worth noting, however, that, like Plato, but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects."

THE AMENDED TEXT (see below) AND ORIGINAL NOTE has been ADDED to the topic "Influence/19th Century"

"The 19th century philosophers Arthur Schopenhauer and Ludwig Noiré both state that Plotinus' Enneads was the first appearance of idealism in Western Philosophy.[note 5]"

USING THE ORIGINAL NOTE as the citation.

The topic "Influence/19th Century" is a more relevant location for the amended text and Note. The text has been changed as the Note does not mention Nous, but it does refer to idealism and Plotinus' Enneads.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Soul

Dear All,

The CITED text, cited by the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica,:

"The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. The nous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but, at the same time, it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite."

has been UPDATED, with citations from Emilsson 2017 Plotinus, and INCORPOATED into the topic "Soul" in the following manner:

(1)

the original text, cited by 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:

"The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous."

has been INCORPORATED into the Emilsson 2017 Plotinus CITED text:

"According to the doctrines of Plotinus, Soul; the third and last immaterial hypostasis; is generated by Nous, the second hypostasis."

NOTE: The original text is inaccurate as it is the hypostasis of Soul that is a diminished image of Nous, not the World-Soul, which is an aspect of the hypostasis of Soul.

(2)

the original text, cited by 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:

"Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. "

has been INCORPORATED into the Emilsson 2017 Plotinus CITED text:

"In Plotinus' doctrines, the hypostasis of Soul is similar to the hypostasis of Nous in that it is essentially a thinker; however, thoughts in Nous are non-discursive and intuitive, whereas in Soul they are discursive and only partially intuitive.[314] The relationship between the hypostasis of Soul and the hypostasis of Nous follows Plotinus' pattern of double activity, as expressed in Ennead 5.1.6.45–48:[315]

"The Soul, indeed, is the word [logos] and actualization of Intelligence [Nous], just as Intelligence is word and actualization of the One. But the Soul is an obscure word. Being :an image of Intelligence, [Soul] must contemplate Intelligence, just as the latter, to subsist, must contemplate the One."—Plotinus, Ennead 5.1.6.45–48[316]

The comprehension between souls in the hypostasis of Soul is diminished when compared with the comprehension between Forms in the hypostasis of Nous, but is similar to Forms and their comprehension of the hypostasis of Nous, in that each soul comprehends the whole hypostasis of Soul in itself.[314]"

which explains the relationship between Nous and Soul

and

"For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous, other aspects rule the motions of the universe and generate material qualities and quantities, including matter; and still other aspects generate and control activities in human beings such as reasoning, sense perception and digestion.[311] Further, for Plotinus, a human soul experiences a desire to comprehend those aspects in the hypostasis of Soul that aspire to comprehend beings in Nous.[311]"

which explains the relationship between Soul and Nature, or the material world.

(3)

the original text, cited by 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:

"The nous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but, at the same time, it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated."

has been INCORPORATED into the Emilsson 2017 Plotinus CITED text:

"In Plotinus' doctrines, the hypostasis of Soul is similar to the hypostasis of Nous in that it is essentially a thinker; however, thoughts in Nous are non-discursive and intuitive, whereas in Soul they are discursive and only partially intuitive.[313] The comprehension between souls in the hypostasis of Soul is diminished when compared with the comprehension between Forms in the hypostasis of Nous, but is similar to Forms and their comprehension of the hypostasis of Nous, in that each soul comprehends the whole hypostasis of Soul in itself.[314]"

and

"For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous, other aspects rule the motions of the universe and generate material qualities and quantities, including matter; and still other aspects generate and control activities in human beings such as reasoning, sense perception and digestion.[311]"

NOTE: the original text is inaccurate as it is the hypostasis of Soul that is a diminished image of Nous. The World-Soul, does not "remain in Nous". it aspires to comprehend the the hypostasis of Soul that in turn aspires to comprehend beings in the hypostasis of Nous. Further, the World-Soul has a different kind of "unity" or wholeness to that of a Form in Nous, as is now explained in the updated text.

(4)

The original text, cited by 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:

"As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite."

has been INCORPORATED into the Emilsson 2017 Plotinus CITED text:

"For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous, other aspects rule the motions of the universe and generate material qualities and quantities, including matter; and still other aspects generate and control activities in human beings such as reasoning, sense perception and digestion.[311] Further, for Plotinus, a human soul experiences a desire to comprehend those aspects in the hypostasis of Soul that aspire to comprehend beings in the hypostasis of Nous.[311]"

NOTE: Again, the original text has a rolling inaccuracy from former statements. It is the hypostasis of Soul that is a diminished image of Nous. The World-Soul is in, and aspires to, comprehend the hypostasis of Soul, which aspires to comprehend beings in Nous. For Plotinus, The World-Soul is an individual soul with a body, i.e. the material universe, it is the hypostasis of Soul that "embraces innumerable individual souls", as the article now says with the Emilsson 2017 Plotinus CITED text:

"With the exception of the soul of the hypostasis of Soul, all the other souls are individual souls, i.e. they are souls of particular material bodies.[315]"

(5)

The original text "world-soul...belong(s) in essence and destination to the intelligible world", cited by 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

has been made MORE ACCURATE and CITED by Emilsson 2017 Plotinus in the following manner:

"For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous,"

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Intermediate Beings

Dear All,

The UNCITED text :

"The One: God, The Good. Transcendent and ineffable.

The Hypercosmic Gods: those that make Essence, Life, and Soul

The Demiurge : the Creator

The Cosmic Gods: those who make Being, Nature, and Matter—including the gods known to us from classical religion."

HAS BEEN INCORPORATED into a new topic called "Divisions of Hypostases" (as the information in the UNCITED TEXT is to do with more than the hypostasis of Soul) in the following manner (citations from : d’Hoine & Martijn 2017 pp. 323-328):

"Neoplatonists after Plotinus, especially the late Athenian neoplatonist Proclus formalized, systematized and elaborated Plotinus' theological system by introducing divisions into Plotinus' three hypostases of the One, Nous and Soul, also given are the sources from Plato and the equivalent Chaldean Oracles and Orphic deities:[335]

The One: [divine reality: the One: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Unique Principle] [Orphic: Chronos][336]

Henads: [divine reality: the One: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Unique Principle] [Orphic: Chronos][336]

Dyad: [divine reality: Limit (First One) and Unlimited: from Plato's Philebus] [Orphic: Ether, Chaos][336

The Intelligible Realm[336]

Being (On): [divine reality: Intelligible gods (noêtoi): from Plato's Philebus 23c] [Chaldean Oracles: Paternal Abyss] [Orphic: The Intelligible][336]

Intelligible Being or One Being: [divine reality: First Intelligible Triad from the 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective, or Living Being in Itself: from Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: Father] [Orphic: Primordial Egg][336]

Intelligible Life: [Wholeness: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Second Intelligible Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective] [Chaldean Oracles: Aiôn] [Orphic: Conceived Egg][336]

Intelligible Intellect: [Plurality: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Third Intelligible Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective from Paradigm in Plato's Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: Total Living Being] [Orphic: Phanes][337]

Life (Zôê): [divine reality: Intelligible-Intellective gods (noêtoi kai noeroi)] [Chaldean Oracles: Intelligible-Intellective gods] [Orphic: Intelligible-Intellective gods][337]

Divine number

[Many (polla): from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: First Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Supra-celestial place] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Iynges] [Orphic: Three Nights][337]

[Whole-Parts: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality Second Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Heaven] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Connectors] [Orphic: three parts of Ouranos][337]

[Shape: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Third Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Sub-celestial vault] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Teletarchs] [Orphic: three gods of the perfective class][337]

Intellect (Nous): [divine reality: Intellective gods (noeroi): from Plato's Phaedrus; Zeus and other Olympians] [Chaldean Oracles: Intellective gods] [Orphic: Intellective][337]

Intellective Being: [In itself-In another: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: First Intellective Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective, or Demiurge from Plato's Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: three Paternal Sources: Kronos, Hecate, Zeus] [Orphic: Triad of Parents: Kronos, Rheia, Zeus][337]

Intellective Life: [Moving and Resting: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Second Intellective Triad] [Chaldean Oracles: three Implacables] [Orphic: three Immaculate gods][337]

Intellective Intellect: [Same and Different: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Seventh Divinity (monad)] [Chaldean Oracles: Diaphragm] [Orphic: castration of Ouranos by Kronos][338]

Soul[338]

Hypercosmic souls: [Like and Unlike: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Hypercosmic gods] [Chaldean Oracles: Leading gods] [Orphic: Four triads][338]

Divine souls

[divine reality: First Hypercosmic Triad from Plato's Gorgias 523a3–5, Second Hypercosmic Triad, Third Hypercosmic Triad, Fourth Hypercosmic Triad] [Chaldean Oracles: (1) Paternal Triad: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades; (2) Coric Triad: Hecate, Soul, Virtue; (3) Apolloniac Triad: three Helios’ or three Apollo’s; (4) Corybantic Triad] [Orphic: (1) Paternal Triad: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades; (2) Coric Triad: Hecate, Soul, Virtue; (3) Apolloniac Triad: three Helios’ or three Apollo’s; (4) three Couretes][338]

Hypercosmic-Encosmic souls: [Contiguous and Separate: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Hypercosmic-Encosmic gods: from Plato's Phaedrus: 12 gods of Phaedrus myth] [Chaldean Oracles and Orphic: demiurgic: Zeus, Poseidon, Hephaestus; immaculate: Hestia, Athena, Ares; life-giving: Demeter, Hera, Artemis; elevating: Hermes, Aphrodite, Apollo][338]

Encosmic souls: [Equal and Unequal: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Encosmic gods; non-wandering gods: fixed stars; wanderings gods: planets and nine sublunary gods: from young gods in Timaeus 40e5–41a3] [Orphic: equal: Dionysus, unequal: Dionysus torn to pieces by the Titans][339]

Universal soul: [partaking in time: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: World-Soul from Plato's Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: Nature and Fatality] [Orphic: gods linked to the celestial bodies][339]

Intermediate souls: [partaking in the division of time: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [divine reality: Angels, Daemons, Heroes from Plato's Phaedrus myth] [Chaldean Oracles: Archangels, Angels, Daemons, Heroes] [Orphic: Higher Souls][339]

Particular souls: [divine reality: Human souls: from Plato's Phaedrus myth] [Chaldean Oracles: human souls, rational part] [Orphic: human souls: rational aspect][339]

Nature[339]

Particular irrational souls: [reality: irrational aspect of human souls, animal souls][339]

Universal bodies: [reality: Elements: from four elements in Plato's Timaeus][340]

Formed matter: [from traces of Forms in Plato's Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: bodies] [Orphic: bodies][340]

First body: [from Plato's Sophist 248–256][340]

Matter: [from Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides 5th hypothesis 159b2–160b4][340]"

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Intermediate Souls

Dear All,

(1)

The topic heading 'Intermediate Beings' has been changed to 'Intermediate Souls' as per d’Hoine & Martijn 2017 p. 327, and thus is more consistent with its parent heading 'Soul'

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"For later neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, intermediate beings such as angels, daemons and heroes are regarded a mediators between the One and humanity."

That text has been INCORPORATED into, and has been made more specific, in the cited text:

"The 3rd century Syrian neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus, in his books I, II and III of de Mysteriis, discusses intermediate souls between planetary gods and human souls and especially angels, daemons and heroes, that exist in separate well-ordered ranks that cannot change into each other."

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths."

That text has been REMOVED as it does not seal specifically with intermediate souls, and may be inaccurate with respect to views on daemons by Porphyry, see Sorabji 2005 Religious Practice p. 403: "Porphyry distinguishes good daemons and bad daemons. The good ones may look after animals and crops (see also Physics 4(a)). But bad daemons can only harm us, and sacrifices attract and sustain them, so can do harm, while in no way persuading them to do good."

(3)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"In Iamblichus' system, the realm of divinities stretched from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul, in fact, descended into matter and became "embodied" as human beings."

That text has been REMOVED as it is not specific to intermediate souls and the gist of the uncited text has been made amply clear in the topic 'Divisions of Hypostases' and also the text in the topic 'Soul' where it says:

"For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous, other aspects rule the motions of the universe and generate material qualities and quantities, including matter; and still other aspects generate and control activities in human beings such as reasoning, sense perception and digestion"

and

"With the exception of the soul of the hypostasis of Soul, all the other souls are individual souls, i.e. they are souls of particular material bodies.[316] Often in Plotinus' doctrines, the souls of stars and the soul of the Earth are seen as aspects of the World-Soul, whilst nature, or the vegetative soul, is a power that controls biological functions and is regarded as an immanent phase of the World-Soul.[315]"

(4)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"Iamblichus had salvation as his final goal (see henosis). The embodied soul was to return to divinity by performing certain rites, or theurgy, literally, 'divine-working'."

That text has been INCORPORATED into the CITED text (Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 Iamblichus on soul by Finamore p. 284):

"For Iamblichus, a human soul could not change into another type of soul, but the antecedent ranks of souls, such as planetary gods, angels, daemons and heroes, were helpful for a human soul's ascent, even though they remained separate. That ascent, for Iamblichus, required the mastery of our own souls through philosophic study and theurgic purification."

(5)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"In Iamblichus' system the world has intermediatory beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings."

This claim needs to be cited and at the moment I can't find a citation for it. I am still looking, however, in neoplatonism, the future is only known to those beings in eternity, i.e. those beings in a non temporal hypostasis, like Nous. Intermediatory souls, which this topic is talking about, are subsequent to the World-soul and so partake in a division of time, hence do not know the future.

What i am finding is this:

"In his view, Plato describes the connected influence of the celestial bodies at the moment of incarnation of a particular soul, which has a ‘fatal’ influence on many events in one’s future life" Steel 2007 On Providence p. 75

and

"He [Proclus] also refers to ‘the Chaldeans and Egyptians’ who can make prognostics about our future life (presumably through ‘horoscopes’)" Steel 2007 On Providence p. 75

So it seems that influence of natural events by celestial bodies is from Plato, and future divination is best attributed to ‘the Chaldeans and Egyptians’

and not Iamblichus.

Hence since the text is UNCITED, it has been REMOVED as it is not part of Iamblichus' system.

Although, it might be incorporated, and modified accordingly, when I add information in this topic about Porphyry and Proclus.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic: Evil

Dear All,

(1)

The UNCITED text:

"Although neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil."

Has been INCOPORATED into the following CITED text, that also makes the text more specific:

in the topic "Divisions of Hypostases"

"Neoplatonists after Plotinus, especially the late Athenian neoplatonist Proclus formalized, systematized and elaborated Plotinus' theological system by introducing divisions into Plotinus' three hypostases of the One, Nous and Soul,"

and in the topic "Evil":

"In his doctrine, On the Existence of Evils, the 5th century neoplatonic philosopher Proclus advances a systematic development of the Platonic doctrine on evil.[340] In that doctrine, Proclus rejects Plotinus' identification of evil with matter in Ennead 1.8.[340] "

(2)

The UNCITED text:

"Neoplatonists, like Proclus, did not believe in an independent existence of evil."

has been INCORPORATED into the cited text:

"For Proclus, if evil is contrary to the One and the Good (the Good for simplicity), and if it exists in Plotinian Matter then it is identical to Plotinian Matter and exists on its own, as Plotinian Matter exists on its own, hence the Good and its contrary, evil, belong to the same genus, as contraries belong to the same genus according to Aristotle, but there is no genus antecedent to the Good, therefore evil does not exist on its own, and hence it is not Plotinian Matter.[341]"

which explains an argument used by Proclus to negate the independent existence of evil.

(3)

The UNCITED text:

"Neoplatonists compared evil to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light. So, too, evil is simply the absence of good."

is inaccurate as for neoplatonists, there is nothing which does not contain some of the Good;

"[For Proclus, a very important neoplatonist]: Evils occur only in particular beings and are relative. This means that they come about in relation to a particular good. They are relative in another sense, too: evil is not absolute because it could not exist by itself. Everything that is evil needs the power of the good and cannot exist on its own. It is at all times mixed with the good." Opsomer & Steel 2014 On the Existence of Evils, p. 21

and so the UNCITED text has been REMOVED.

(4)

The UNCITED text:

"Things are good insofar as they exist; they are evil only insofar as they are imperfect, lacking some good which they should have."

has been INCORPORATED into the cited text:

"Those souls in which evil is present are capable of not acting according to their nature and are capable of choosing that which is worse.[344]"

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Return to the One

FIRST SENTENCE

(1)

Dear All,

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife."

Thar statement is far from being accurate:

"Some men are so much in love with what Plotinus would call the lower soul-life, the surface-consciousness and surface-experience which make up the content of our sojourn here as known to ourselves, that they wish, if possible, to continue it after their bodies are mouldering in the grave. Others recognise that this lower soul-life is a banishment from the true home of the Soul, which is in a supra-temporal world, and they have no wish to prolong the conditions of their probation after the probation itself is ended, and we are quit of our ‘ body of humiliation.’" Inge 1948 Philosophy of Plotinus vol 2, p. 96

For Neoplatonists the life in this material world is a "lower soul-life", a "banishment from the true home of the Soul". The soul's home is in the "supra-temporal world". For Neoplatonists, perfection and true happiness are not attainable in the material world.

Similarly:

"The Soul which lives Yonder in blessed intercourse with God is not the ' compound ’ which began its existence when we were born. Nothing which can never die was ever born. Our true self is a denizen of the eternal world. Its home is in the sphere of eternal and unchanging activity Yonder, even while it energises in the execution of finite but Divine purposes here below." Inge 1948 Philosophy of Plotinus vol 2, p. 97

The "life" which the word "afterlife" refers is to Neoplatonists a "' compound ’ which began its existence when we were born". "Nothing which can never die was ever born." The human soul for neoplatonists never dies, and the physical body is a "‘ body of humiliation.’"...far from being perfect and happy.

For Neoplatonists, the only true happiness is in the "supra-temporal world", the "the true home of the Soul", the "eternal world"...which is probably similar to the Christain view of the "afterlife." Hence any perfection and true happiness cis in the "supra-temporal" "eternal world".

There is also no mention of the word "afterlife" in my collection of 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century authoritative Neoplatonism scholarship. Not one, the term seems relevant to Christian theology, not to Neoplatonic theology, where the term would be "supra-temporal world", "eternal world" or technically "the hypostasis of Soul".

Hence the UNCITED text has been REMOVED

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"Perfection and happiness—seen as synonymous—could be achieved through philosophical contemplation."

This is also far from being accurate as:

"If the deepest nature of humanity extends to the unchanging and divine levels of being, into the immediate vicinity of the One, why are we nonetheless embodied, and spend most of our time in less than intellectual activities, far from wisdom as well as perfection of goodness and happiness?" Remes 2008 Neoplatonism p. 112

Hence, for a Neoplatonist, no amount of "philosophical contemplation" whilst in the material world can achieve "perfection and happiness" as in the material world, the Neoplatonist is "far from wisdom as well as perfection of goodness and happiness".

Further, the exact phrase "perfection and happiness" is only used once in over 560 works, in one of my digital libraries, of authoritative 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century scholarship of Platonic, Middle Platonic, Neoplatonic, Gnostic, Neopythagorean, Aristotelian, pre-Socratic, and Orphic, philosophy, which being so unusual deserves to be quoted:

"Moreover, if one were to investigate the nature of time, one would know more clearly not only how time contributes toward making both the whole cosmos and the greater parts of it eternal, but also how it assists each and every one of them toward perfection and happiness." Baltzly 2013 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Vol. 5 p. 51 and is a translation of text by Proclus.

However, that quote relates to how time assists "making both the whole cosmos and the greater parts of it eternal" and how time assists perfection and happiness

That quote does not mention "philosophical contemplation" by a human.

Hence due to the inaccuracy of the UNCITED text, it has been REMOVED.

(3)

With respect to the text:

"For neoplatonists, all people return to the One, from which they emanated"

(a) Leahy 2003 Faith and Philosophy p. 5-6

Now that statement is simplistically correct, however the citation Leahy 2003 Faith and Philosophy p. 5-6 does not mention return to the One, it briefly explains Plotinus' doctrine of the One. I have the book and have read the pages in question.

Note: Of the 16 occurrence of the word "return" in the entire work Leahy 2003 Faith and Philosophy, none are about "return to the One", and the 22 instances of the phrase "the One" (case-sensitive) in the entire work, only discuss Plotinus' view of the One in relation of other philosophers, mostly Aristotle but also contemporary philosophers.

Hence the CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT the text it purports to support and as it is ONLY USED ONCE in the article, it can and has been REMOVED as a citation for that text.

There are more accurate statements of the text under question, that will be cited.

(b) Enneads VI 9.6

Again, this citation does not support the text "For neoplatonists, all people return to the One, from which they emanated", see Gerson 2018 Plotinus The Enneads, Ennead 6.9.6, which I have just read, again. That particular Ennead discusses Plotinus' doctrine of the One, not his doctrine of the "return to the One" which is in 6.9.1-6.9.3, which may be used as a citation from Gerson 2018 Plotinus The Enneads.

Hence the CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT the text it purports to support and as it is ONLY USED ONCE in the article, it can and has been REMOVED as a citation for that text.

(c) Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), SUNY Press, page 173.

which is from the work Wallis & Bregman 1992 Neoplatonism and Gnosticism p. 173 (a work I have) does not support the text "For neoplatonists, all people return to the One, from which they emanated". That page discusses "The One is not energeia." which is the tile of the topic. I have just read part 1 of the topic p. 173-174. It does not mention "return to the One".

Hence the CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT the text it purports to support and as it is ONLY USED ONCE in the article, it can and has been REMOVED as a citation for that text.

(4) Summary

The text under question:

"For neoplatonists, all people return to the One, from which they emanated"

has been replaced with the triply cited text:

"A crucial premise of neoplatonism, and why it constitutes a religion, is that all things progress from the One and all things, especially human souls, have a destiny to return to the One.[349][350][351] "

the supporting citations being:

Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 178, Metaphysics by Ahbel-Rappe.

Butorac & Layne 2017, p. 220, 226, Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus on Parmenides 137d by Wear.

d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 224, Theurgy in the Context of Proclus’ Philosophy by Berg.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Return to the One Part 2

SECOND SENTENCE

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the text:

"The neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul."

That sentence seems to be accurate; however the citation:

Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Brown, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar, 1999, Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, page 40. Harvard University Press.

does not discuss "pre-existence, and immortality of the soul". Again, I have the book and the page discusses:

"Christian sacralization of space"

and "two types of [Jewish] religious buildings" before the year 70.

Hence the CITATION DOES NOT SUPPORT the text it purports to support and as it is USED TWICE in the article (no sfns) therefore this instance can and has been REMOVED as a citation for that text.

Note: the citation REFERENCE: "Plotinus, iv. 7, "On the immortality of the Soul."" is correct and has been REPLACED BY THE equivalent BOOK CITATION:

Gerson, Lloyd P., ed. (2018). Plotinus The Enneads (in English and Greek). Translated by Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson, Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James. United Kingdom; USA; Australia; India; Singapore: Cambridge University Press. pp. Ennead 4.7 (2) ff. doi:10.1017/9780511736490. ISBN 9781107001770.

(2)

With respect to the UNCITED text:

"The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul."

That has been INCORPORATED into the cited text:

"The 1st century Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea,[353] the 5th century neoplatonist Proclus[354] and the 6th century neoplatonist Damascius,[355] embraced Platonic and Aristotelian notions of ethics and especially Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia, where there is a distinction between intellectual virtues and virtues of a character, that are discussed in Nicomachean Ethics II–VI.[356] For Aristotle, Intellectual virtues are the excellences of the rational aspect in a human soul; however, the irrational aspect of a human soul is capable of being persuaded by reason, and the excellences of that aspect of the human soul are moral values or virtues of character.[357]"

(3)

With respect to the text:

"It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle" (okhêma),[358] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.[359]"

With the citation: Paul S. MacDonald, 2003, History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations About Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume, page 122. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

The late neoplatonic ókhēma-pneûma doctrine is very tricky for people not familiar with neoplatonic theology.

(A)

What Paul S. MacDonald says on p. 122 is:

"the upper vehicle [okhêma] accounted for the human soul’s immortality and its return (ascent) to god’s dominion"

(B)

MacDonald does not mean a return to the One, for "god’s dominion" in this case is the hypostasis of Soul.

(C)

Note in MacDonald, 2003 p.122: "god’s dominion", note the lowercase for "god’s" and note "god’s dominion" is not God itself, i.e. the One in neoplatonic terms.

(D)

For as Dodds says: "The higher [okhêma] is immaterial, impassible and imperishable; it corresponds in its perpetuity to the enduring root of unreason in the human soul which survives every purgation." in Dodds 1971 Dodds Elements of Theology p. 320

So that Dodds is also talking about a periodicity of souls, i.e. "enduring root of unreason in the human soul which survives every purgation".

(E)

Dodds 1971 and MacDonald 2003 are not talking about a return to the One, but rather every time a soul returns to the hypostasis of Soul which involves the okhêma surviving "every purgation".

The return to the One is quite different, as there is no surviving after that purgation, that is it, end of story. THE END.

Hence, the text in question is not about a return to the One and so HAS BEEN MOVED to the new topic "Ókhēma-Pneûma" together with its citations.

Regards

Daryl

PS: By the way, there is an infinite number of times the soul returns to the material world from the hypostasis of Soul in neoplatonic theology , "before" it returns to the One, as the One is beyond infinity (as that is a plurality), and beyond perpetuity (as that is temporal) and beyond our conceptions...for this see Dodds 1971 p. 302

Darylprasad (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Updates will be less frequent

Dear All,

I have had a request to make my updates less frequent, and that is what I will be doing.

That allows me to spend more time writing the article.

Please leave a message on this page or my Talk page if you want clarification of any particular edits.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Updated Version of the Topic: Doctrines

Dear All,

I have predominately completed my work on the updated version of the topic 'Doctrines'; however the following further work may be necessary:

. fixing citation inconsistencies

. adding new citations

. adding small sub-topics that are important

. elaborating existing topics (probably 'Nous', 'Nature' and 'Return to the One') for completeness

. adding Greek text for important terms, with citations

. improving expression, clarity or accuracy

. improving aesthetics.

With respect to the topic "Doctrines", I have tried to provide a summary of some of the the major neoplatonic doctrines, mainly from Plotinus, with major modifications by Proclus, and minor modifications by Porphyry and Iamblichus and others. I think that detailed expositions of neoplatonic doctrines are best left to articles on individual neoplatonic philosophers.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

Dear All,

A BIG thank you to the editor or editors that have created and are working in the 'Bibliography' for this article. It really helps identify those texts that have translators only.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Notification of Wikipedia Account Breach

Dear All,

Today Microsoft advised me to immediately change my Wikipedia password because of an account breach they detected on my Wikipedia account. Please be advised that any edits on Wikipedia that are out of character, I think you know what I write like by now, are not mine.

Note: For the next few months, I will only be editing the 'Proclus' and 'Neoplatonism' articles. Any other edits on Wikipedia are not mine.

Regards Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Influence

Dear All

I will shortly be beginning work on the topic "Influence".

It will be a rather large topic as there is an enormous amount of neoplatonic influence in Western, Christian, Islamic and Jewish religion and philosophy from the 6th to 21st centuries that need to be summarily covered.

I will be trying my best not to go into too much detail, but sometimes that cannot be avoided. I think it will be the longest of all the major topics in the article.

Please leave a note on this Talk page topic about any points you need clarified, major edits or deletions you think are necessary.

Once again, I ask for your patience whilst editing the topic, and will keep you updated at regular intervals.

(1)

With respect to the UNCITED sentence:

"Neoplatonism has been referred to as orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars like John D. Turner; this reference may be due, in part, to Plotinus' attempt to refute certain interpretations of Platonic philosophy, through his Enneads."

That sentence is on a lot of web-sites, including a couple on Wikipedia, without citation.

Since the 'Neoplatonism' article already has the following paragraph, with five citations:

"Significant recent scholarship that advanced tenets of similarity between Platonism, middle Platonism and neoplatonism were authored by the 20th century French philosopher André-Jean Festugiere,[483] the 20th century Dutch philosopher Cornelia de Vogel,[480] the 20th century American historian Harold F. Cherniss,[484] the 20th century Irish scholar E. R. Dodds,[485] the 20th century German philosopher Philip Merlan and the 20th and 21st century Irish philosopher John M. Dillon.[486]"

I don't think we need another. I have tried to cite John D. Turner's statements in "Corrigan & Turner 2007 Platonisms Ancient, Modern, And Postmodern" but cannot seem to find something appropriate. If anyone has the citation I will add him to the list of scholars in the above cited paragrph, but for now, the sentence HAS BEEN REMOVED.

(2)

With repect to the mostly UNCITED paragrph:

"Gnosticism

Neoplatonism also had links with Gnosticism, which Plotinus rebuked in his ninth tractate of the second Enneads: "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of The Cosmos and The Cosmos Itself to Be Evil" (generally known as "Against The Gnostics"). Due to their belief being grounded in Platonic thought, the neoplatonists rejected Gnosticism's vilification of Plato's demiurge, the creator of the material world or cosmos discussed in the Timaeus. Plotinus believed the followers of Gnosticism had corrupted the original teachings of Plato and often argued against likes of Valentinus who, according to Plotinus, had given rise to doctrines of dogmatic theology with ideas such as that the Spirit of Christ was brought forth by a conscious god after the fall from Pleroma. According to Plotinus, The One is not a conscious god with intent, nor a godhead, nor a conditioned existing entity of any kind, rather a requisite principle of totality which is also the source of ultimate wisdom."

That paragraph has been updated, with recent scholarship, by the cited paragraph:

"The majority of scholars during the early to mid-20th century saw the relationship between Plotinus and the Gnostics as mainly antagonistic, due to the philosophical critiques by Plotinus himself, in Ennead 2.9 Against the Gnostics, 3.8, 5.8 and 5.5, and also those emerging in other doctrines in the Enneads.[150] However, notable works by the scholars Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist 1993 [1934]; Joseph Katz, Plotinus and the Gnostics 1954; Cornelia de Vogel, On the Neoplatonic Character of Platonism and the Platonic Character of Neoplatonism 1953; and Henri-Charles Puech, Plotin et les Gnostiques 1960, highlighted crucial parallels between the doctrines of Plotinus and those of the Gnostics, that branched out from their common religious and philosophical environment of Alexandria in the 3rd century.[150] Similar views were held by the 21st century American professor of religious studies John D. Turner and are held by the 21st century Canadian professor of philosophy Jean-Marc Narbonne.[150] In those views, it is realized that during the entire period of Plotinus' school, from c. 245 AD to 269 AD, Plotinus had many quarrels and critical events with many issues, where 'battles' with the Gnostics took on a priority; however, contemporary scholars are now interpreting the Gnostics as authentically inventive interpreters of the traditions of ancient philosophy, which was in direct competition to Plotinus' school, and that Plotinus was very conscious of that competition.[151]"

with citations from Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014: 'Plotinus and the Gnostics: opposed heirs of Plato' by John D. Turner p. 52-53

As the text is more about Plotinus' view on the Gnostics than the influence of neoplatonism, it has been moved to "History/Plotinus"

(3)

With respect to the CITED and UNCITED following sentences:

(A) "Certain central tenets of neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity.[456] As a Manichee hearer, Augustine had held that evil has substantial being and that God is made of matter; when he became a neoplatonist, he changed his views on these things."

(B) 'When writing his treatise 'On True Religion' several years after his 387 AD baptism, Augustine's Christianity was still tempered by neoplatonism.'

(C) "As a neoplatonist, and later a Christian, Augustine believed that evil is a privation of good[459] and that God is not material.[460] "

Those sentences have been incorporated into the CITED paragraph:

"A very early 5th century influence of neoplatonism can be seen in the conversion to Christianity by the late 4th to early 5th century Christian theologian Saint Augustine, where in his work Confessions 7.9, which he started writing in 397 AD,[456] he says he was influenced in that conversion by reading 'books of the Platonists'.[457] Although he does not say exactly what books he read, 21st century scholarship has the view that it was most likely translations of the 3rd century neoplatonists Plotinus and Porphyry by the 4th century Roman grammarian and neoplatonic philosopher Marius Victorinus.[457] In his youth, he says in Confessions 5.10.19 and 7.1.1–2, he had difficulty believing how anything could exist without it being corporeal, and hence he found the dualistic materialism of Manichaeism unobjectionable;[458] however, the books by Plotinus and Porphyry convinced Saint Augustine that truth was incorporeal, and the One, or God, was the eternal, unchanging cause of all things,[457] and also that evil[459] is a privation of good.[460]"

Where it is to be noted that Saint Augustine wrote Confession about c. 397- 400 AD, and so the gist of the UNCITED sentence (B) is also in the new CITED paragraph. Sentence (C) has also been incorporated with new and updated CITATIONS.

Darylprasad (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(4)

Regarding the paragraph:

The term logos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers to Thales[473] in interpreting logos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between the hypostases[474] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One'). St. John introduces a relation between Logos and the Son, Christ,[475] whereas Paul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[475][476][477] Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[475] For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[478][479][480] He strongly influenced early medieval Christian philosophy.[481] Perhaps the key subject in this was Logos.

With respect to the heavily CITED sentences:

(A) "For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[478][479][480] He strongly influenced early medieval Christian philosophy.[481] Perhaps the key subject in this was Logos."

(B) "St. John introduces a relation between Logos and the Son, Christ,[475] whereas Paul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[475][476][477]"

Both sentences (A) and (B) have BEEN REMOVED for the following reasons (a) and (b):

(a) This is not an article about Saint Augustine, which is where sentence (A) belongs, and so it and its citations:

"Confessions 7.9.13-14, De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction, and 1 John 1:14,"

have been preserved here if anyone wants to put it into the Saint Augustine article.

(b) Nor is this an article about St. John, which is where sentence (B) belongs, and so it and its citations:

"Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25 and Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25 and Col. 1:15 and Phil. 2:5-7"

have been preserved here if anyone wants to put it into the Saint John's article.

With respect to the remaining sentences:

"The term logos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers to Thales[473] in interpreting logos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between the hypostases[474] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One'). Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[475]"

they have been INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH and moved to from 'Influence/5th century' to 'Doctrines/Nous' where it is more specifically relevant:

"The central question of where Platonic ideas, or Forms were located in the Platonic hypostases was not really answered by Plato in his dialogue Phaedrus 247c-e.[332] The middle Platonists combined theories of Aristotle and Plato and asserted Forms are in the divine mind, where Aristotle's First Intellect, or God, in contemplating itself, comprehends Forms.[332] That theme appeared in some doctrines of Philo's Logos theory and addressed the central Platonic question of where Forms are located; as did Plotinus' doctrine of Nous; however, unlike Aristotle's First Intellect and Plato's Form of the Good, Plotinus' doctrine on Nous asserted that Nous was the second hypostasis, subsequent to the One, or the Good, and is where Forms are located in the neoplatonic hypostases.[333] For Plotinus, Nous is an active non-temporal hypostasis that is generated by the One, usually described in metaphors.[333]"

NOTE1:

With respect to the text about the 4th century neoplatonist Marius Victorinus:

"Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[475]"

The new paragraph already says that about the 3rd century Plotinus' doctrine of Nous (the neoplatonic interpretation of Logos), and so the text about Victorinus is not necessary and it and its citation:

'Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25'

HAVE BEEN REMOVED, but are preserved here if someone wants to use it in the aticle about Marius Victorinus.

NOTE 2:

With respect to the text:

"Plotinus refers to Thales[473]..."

The reference to 'Thales' is a 46 page German article and does not cite a page number not 'Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel'.

The reference to Thales in Opsomer and Steel's 2012 translation of Proclus' 'Ten Problems concerning Providence' p. 127 is:

"This is a famous dictum attributed to Thales, quoted by Plato in the discussion on providence, Leg. 10, 899B9 (cf. DK (Thales) 11 A 22). See also Proclus, in Tim. 3,36,25 and ET §145, p. 128,20."

No mention of Plotinus.

As Dodds says in his commentary of Proclus' Elements of Theology (1971) Proposition 145 (ET §145) p. 245:

"it must be understood (referring to the interpretation of Thales dictum that 'all things are full of Gods') as referring to the power and not to the essence of the gods', which is not really relevant to Nous specifically, it is generally referring to the power of god's present in each of the four material elements."

Hence it is not really relevant in the topic 'Nous'; and is ALREADY DISCUSSED in the Proclus article in the topic "Soul/Divine Souls"

Hence the CITATION HAS BEEN REMOVED as has the text 'Thales'.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Selected Bibliography

Dear All

Over the next few days I will be linking citations to translated works in 'References and Citations' to 'Translations' and replacing the citations with sfns. See 'Proclus' article for where I have done that for ALL citations for translated works.

After that I will be resuming work on the topic 'Influence'...that will take a long time.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear All

ALL citations for translations now link to the relevant translation in 'Translations'

also

All links in 'References and Citations' should now take you to the relevant work, either in 'Bibliography of Translations' or 'References and Citations'

Regards

Daryl

Ps: Let me know on this page if any of the links do not take you to the work.

Darylprasad (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear All,

I have added the L1 topic 'Selected Bibliography' for ease of reference and future citations.

The selected bibliography comprises the topics 21st century references and Translations. The topic 21st century references comprises a list of all 21st century references to books and journals cited in this article, but excludes references to websites. References to cited books and journals from earlier centuries are in the topic References and Citations. The topic Translations comprises a list of all translated books cited in this article.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Back to Writing the Article

Dear All,

After a week or so working on bibliographies for the 'Proclus' article and this article, I will now continue editing the 'Influence' topic and other topics.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Middle Ages Greek

Dear All,

(A)

With respect to the following CITED sentence:

"After the Platonic Academy was destroyed in the first century BC, philosophers continued to teach Platonism, but it was not until the early 5th century (c. 410 AD) that a revived academy (which had no connection with the original Academy) was established in Athens by some leading neoplatonists.[496]"

which has the citation: Cameron, Alan. “the Last Days of the Academy at Athens.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, no. 15 (195), 1969, pp. 7–29, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44696832.

The citation does not support the text and so the text HAS BEEN REMOVED. The citation (an excellent one and still used, see below) talks about events after 529 AD and there is no mention of 'After the Platonic Academy was destroyed in the first century BC' nor is there any mention of the establishment of the neoplatonic school in Athens. The establishment of the neoplatonic school in Athens has already been mentioned in the CITED second paragraph of the article:

"...and in Athens in the early 5th century, the neoplatonic philosopher Plutarch of Athens became head of the school of Plato in Athens, succeeding the orthodox Platonic academy.[22]"

The citation Cameron 1969 is still used multiple times, (an excellent Journal entry) with specific page numbers, in the following paragraph:

"In 529 AD, the Byzantine emperor Justinian I issued a general law forbidding non-Christians in the Byzantine empire from teaching and to submit to baptism or be exiled and their property confiscated.[497] At the time the Byzantine empire's major centres included Alexandria, Athens, Constantinople and Rome. That law seems to have been predominantly directed at the neoplatonic[498][499] school of Athens, where at the time Damascius was the head of the school, as that neoplatonic school was seen by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I to be more of a threat to Christianity than other neoplatonic schools elsewhere in the empire.[500] The closure of the neoplatonic school of Athens and confiscations of property took place between 529–531 AD, and it was probably in 532 AD that Damascius, Simplicius, a former pupil of Ammonius in Alexandria, and their neoplatonic colleagues left Athens and travelled east to Persia.[501] In Alexandria, the late Roman laws proved little more than notifications to the central government, and after a few months, nobody took any more notice of this law than of any other.[502] That is evidenced by the writings of the neoplatonic philosopher Olympiodorus that reveal he was still teaching in Alexandria in 565 AD, and lecture notes from students also reveal he did not hide his neoplatonism.[502]"

The new paragraph also cites the following Journals:

Blumenthal, H. J. “529 and its Sequel : What Happened to the Academy?” Byzantion, vol. 48, no. 2, 1978, pp. 369–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44171310. Accessed 12 May 2022.

Watts, Edward. “Justinian, Malalas, and the End of Athenian Philosophical Teaching in A.D. 529.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 94, 2004, pp. 168–82, https://doi.org/10.2307/4135014. Accessed 12 May 2022.

(B)

With respect to the following UNCITED sentence:

"It persisted until 529 AD when it was finally closed by Justinian I because of active paganism of its professors."

That sentence is incorporated and CITED in the new paragraph, see (A) above

(C)

With respect to the following CITED sentence:

"Other schools continued in Constantinople and Antioch.[505][506]"

with the citations:

[505]: Lindberg, David C. "The Beginnings of Western Science", page 70 (I now have the book)

and

[506]: "Higher education - The Byzantine Empire". Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1 November 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2022. (Website: https://www.britannica.com/topic/education/The-Byzantine-Empire)

neither citation supports the text and so the text HAS BEEN REMOVED as have the citations as there is no text left to support. Neither citation talks about schools of neoplatonism in "Constantinople" or "Antioch".

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Middle Ages lead-in

Dear All,

At the moment, the lead-in to Middle Ages is quite brief:

"In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic theological and philosophical doctrines were studied and incorporated into Christian,[490] Islamic[491] and Jewish[492] religion and philosophy.[493]"

That will expand to include the most significant aspects of the Middle Ages subtopics after work on the subtopics have been more fully detailed.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear All,

The updated lead-in is the following:

"In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic theological and philosophical doctrines were studied and incorporated into Christian,[491] Islamic[492] and Jewish[493] religion and philosophy.[494] Important Christian neoplatonic influences throughout the Middle Ages were though the early 6th century works Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum of Pseudo-Dionysius[495] and De consolatione philosophiae by Boethius.[496][497] The two Arabic texts that are central to the influence of Greek neoplatonism into Islamic and Jewish contexts in the Middle Ages are: the Theology of Aristotle, an edited version of books 4–6 of Plotinus’ Enneads; and the Kalām fī mah d al-khair (The Book of the Pure Good, or sometimes referred to as the Arabic Liber de Causis[498]), an edited version of parts of Proclus’ Elements of Theology, known as the Liber de Causis (Book of Causes) in its later Latin translation.[499]"

Which still needs sentences on major Byzantine neoplatonic influences...but is getting better.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine reception/7th century

Dear All,

(1)

With respect to the following cited paragraph:

"After the closure of the neoplatonic academy, neoplatonic and other non-Christian philosophical studies continued in publicly funded schools in Alexandria. In the early seventh century, the neoplatonist Stephanus of Alexandria brought this Alexandrian tradition to Constantinople, where it would remain influential, albeit as a form of secular education.[543]"

which has the citation: "Higher education - The Byzantine Empire". Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1 November 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2022.

That paragraph HAS BEEN REPLACED with the following cited paragraph:

"The late 6th to early 7th century[543] Byzantine philosopher Stephanus of Alexandria was a former student[294] of Olympiodorus (the last[43] neoplatonic leader of the neoplatonic school of Alexandria) and is regarded as the last known neoplatonic philosopher in Alexandria.[294] Stephanus lectured in Alexandria and Constantinople[543] and wrote on the ‘Canon(s) of Proclus'; which are logical relationships between propositions, in the context of Aristotelian logic by way of his commentary on Aristotle's work On Interpretation (De Interpretatione).[544] The ‘Canon(s) of Proclus' were later to be known in the field of logic as 'the rule of obversion' and is regarded as an impressive achievement in the field of formal logic.[544]"

The replacement paragraph gives a more specific explanation of the influence of neoplatonism and I note that the previous citation ("Higher education - The Byzantine Empire". Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1 November 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2022., does not mention Stephanus of Alexandria.)

(2)

With respect to the text:

"The school in Constantinople maintained an active philosophical tradition of Platonism and Aristotelianism, with the former being the longest unbroken Platonic school, running for close to two millennia until the fifteenth century.[545]"

which has the citation: "Higher education - The Byzantine Empire". Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 1 November 2021. Retrieved 10 May 2022.

That text is not supported by the citation and HAS BEEN REPLACED by the text and supportative citation:

"The university school in Constantinople continued to teach a form of neoplatonism until the 8th century which marks the end of original neoplatonism and the end of the period known as late antiquity.[544]"

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

TOC level

Dear All,

The TOC level has been changed to 'TOC limit|4' for the ease of navigation for a reader and for me whilst I am editing the article.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Renaissance

Dear All,

(1)

The UNCITED paragraph:

"Neoplatonism ostensibly survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the West by Pletho (c. 1355–1452/1454 AD), an avowed pagan and opponent of the Byzantine Church, inasmuch as the latter, under Western scholastic influence, relied heavily upon Aristotelian methodology. Pletho's Platonic revival, following the Council of Florence (1438–1439 AD), largely accounts for the renewed interest in Platonic philosophy which accompanied the Renaissance."

and UNCITED sentence:

"Neoplatonism in the Renaissance combined the ideas of Christianity and a new awareness of the writings of Plato. In Florence, Gemistos Plethon met Cosimo de' Medici and influenced the latter's decision to found a new Platonic Academy there."

have been INCORPORATED into the CITED paragraph:

"In 15th century Florence, the Byzantine philosopher Georgius Gemisthus Pletho was one of the delegates who travelled from Constantinople with Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos to negotiate the reunion of the Eastern and Western churches at the Council of Florence between 1438–1439 AD.[746] Pletho brought to Florence a Byzantine trend of scholarship on neoplatonism and a model of a Platonic School.[746] In the Council of Florence, his ideas were often listened to by Cosimo de’ Medici,[582] the first head of the House of Medici, and inspired Cosimo in his efforts to make Florence an academic centre.[746] Pletho's works, for example Laws,[747] show a characteristic tension in Middle Ages Byzantine philosophy that sought to harmonize certain neoplatonic and Christian doctrines, while rejecting certain other doctrines of neoplatonism.[748] Pletho's very important work De Differentiis, completed in 1439, which is a vigorous refutation of Aristotelianism in favour of Platonism, started a controversy over the respective merits of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that was to last for over 30 years in the Latin West and Byzantine East.[749]"

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(2)

The UNCITED paragraph:

""Of all the students of Greek in Renaissance Italy, the best-known are the Neoplatonists who studied in and around Florence" (Hole). Neoplatonism was not just a revival of Plato's ideas, it is all based on Plotinus' created synthesis, which incorporated the works and teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greek philosophers. The Renaissance in Italy was the revival of classic antiquity, and this started at the fall of the Byzantine empire, who were considered the "librarians of the world", because of their great collection of classical manuscripts and the number of humanist scholars that resided in Constantinople (Hole)."

as been incorporated and replaced by the CITED paragraph;

"During the 15th century in Italy, before and after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, there was a significant flow of Byzantine negotiators and emigrants that brought and diffused knowledge of Greek literature that was unknown in the Latin West, and by the latter part of the 15th century, book printing spread across Europe.[724] Central to the transmission of neoplatonism into Italy, and more generally into the Latin West, were 15th century translations of works by Plato, Plotinus, Proclus and other neoplatonists,[747] particularly in Florence where there was an important collection of manuscripts from Byzantine scholars.[748]"

I note the following:

The UNCITED paragraph seems to quote "Hole", without a title of the work or page number. As far as I can see, the text comes from an article in the book "Goethe’s Message for the 21st century: "Islam is the rescue for Humanity" by Sufi Path of Love 2014, ISBN 9781291809534 published by Lulu.com (an online print-on-demand, self-publishing, and distribution platform), by a writer who is not a recognized authority on neoplatonic studies and is not credentialed in the article nor the book. Who "Hole" is, I am not quite sure, but that person does not seem to be the author of the article in the book.

The replacement paragraph that incorporates the main ideas of the replaced text is sourced from authoritative works on neoplatonism: d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, Remes 2008 and Corrigan 2005.

(3)

The UNCITED paragraphs:

"Cosimo subsequently appointed as head Marsilio Ficino, who proceeded to translate all Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other neoplatonist works into Latin. Neoplatonism also had a strong influence on the perennial philosophy of the Italian Renaissance philosopher and Catholic priest Marsilio Ficino and the Renaissance philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and continues through nineteenth-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism."

and

"Marsilio Ficino was "chiefly responsible for packaging and presenting Plato to the Renaissance" (Hole). In 1462 AD, Cosimo I de' Medici, patron of arts, who had an interest in humanism and Platonism, provided Ficino with all 36 of Plato's dialogues in Greek for him to translate. Between 1462 and 1469 AD, Ficino translated these works into Latin, making them widely accessible, as only a minority of people could read Greek. And, between 1484 and 1492 AD, he translated the works of Plotinus, making them available for the first time to the West."

has been INCORPORATED into the following CITED paragraph:

"In 1462, Cosimo de’ Medici gave the Italian scholar and Catholic priest Marsilio Ficino and his circle of scholars: a number of Greek manuscripts to translate; the use of the Villa Medici at Careggi, just outside Florence; and funds to aid Ficino's work.[753] From 1462 to the end of the 15th century Ficino and his circle translated, from Greek into Latin: the Hermetic corpus attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; the works of Plato (1464–1470);[754] the Enneads by Plotinus (1484–1492);[754] and certain works of Proclus[754] (1492–1499).[755] The flow of neoplatonic literature from Byzantine to Italy also had a significant influence on the 15th century Renaissance philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and the 16th century Italian Dominican friar and philosopher Giordano Bruno.[747]"

Where I note that the UNCITED text 'all 36 of Plato's dialogues' seems dubious as there are about 55 dialogues of Plato (see title page of Taylor's 'The Works of Plato' 1804). I also not again that: the UNCITED paragraph seems to quote "Hole", without a title of the work or page number. As far as I can see, the text comes from an article in the book "Goethe’s Message for the 21st century: "Islam is the rescue for Humanity" by Sufi Path of Love 2014, ISBN 9781291809534 published by Lulu.com (an online print-on-demand, self-publishing, and distribution platform), by a writer who is not a recognized authority on neoplatonic studies and is not credentialed in the article nor the book. Who "Hole" is, I am not quite sure, but that person does not seem to be the author of the article in the book.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

ISBN's for Further Reading

Greetings @Darylprasad and all

I've noticed the books in the "further reading" do not have ISBN's listed. I considered adding them.

However, noticing how this page is extremely impressive, and how this status seems to be entirely sustained by gargantuan volumes of labour expended by yourself, I thought it best to ask for permission before adding potentially unnecessary clutter Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: Please do. I have not touched 'Further Reading' and would be very happy if you 'own' it. Also, thank you for your kind remarks, much appreciated.

Regards

Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

My Work on this Article is Predominantly Finished

Dear All

I think my work on this article is predominantly finished; however, I will edit the article:

. If new information becomes available;

. If an important new topic, or a lead-in to an existing topic needs to be added;

. If there is a need to fix technical errors and content errors;

. If I find redundant and repetitive citations;

. If I can improve expression and punctuation;

. if I can find some more appropriate images;

. If I can make the article more aesthetically pleasing.

In the article, I have tried to introduce some of the many important topics pertinent to neoplatonism.

Thanks for your patience.

Have a lovely day!

Regards

Daryl Prasad

PS: I am currently working on the 'Plotinus' article.

Darylprasad (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Length of Article

Dear All,

Regarding:

'This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Its current readable prose size is 153 kilobytes. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (June 2022)'

With regards to splitting or condensing the article, that is far easier said than done. In writing the article, much effort has been made to condense scholarly text.

With respect to length:

Given that the following are longer and there are no templates on these articles, it seems very selective to put a template on this article.

. (hist) ‎2021 in American television ‎[470,355 bytes]

. (hist) ‎Firefox version history ‎[469,668 bytes]

. (hist) ‎Miss Grand ‎[469,551 bytes]

. (hist) ‎List of Nintendo DS games ‎[462,298 bytes]

. (hist) ‎Dragons' Den (British TV programme) ‎[431,850 bytes]

. (hist) ‎2018 in paleontology ‎[429,197 bytes]

. (hist) ‎DC Extended Universe ‎[433,524 bytes]

etc...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages

Neoplatonism is very important in history and philosophy and more important in history than many of the long articles in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages.

Due to the introduced subheadings, and the immense amount of work needed to design a split of the article, the template has been removed. Further, the template could be put on articles that are longer than this article and so it seems superfluous and quite selective and has been removed.

Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Al-Kindi stamp, Egypt (1975).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

But... what does it mean?

This article has a lot of information about how various philosophers interpreted various Platonic teachings. But I came here to get an overview of what neoplatonism is, and I am none the wiser. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@71.228.112.175: Please read the section 'Doctrines' to get an overview of neoplatonic doctrines, that is what neoplatonism 'is'. The other sections describe 'History' and 'Influence'

For a very concise summary, read the first sentence of the article: "Neoplatonism refers to a philosophical and religious system, beginning with the work of Plotinus in 245 AD, that teaches interpretations of the philosophy and theology of Plato, extending the Middle Platonism of the intervening centuries, c. 80–c. 245 AD.

The topic 'Doctrines' gives a summary of that philosophical and religious system.

Darylprasad (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The 'Doctrines' section is just as verbose, abstruse and void of context. The whole article is far too long and esoteric. The information shouldn't be dumbed down necessarily, nor should everything have to be over-explained, but this is supposed to be a popular encyclopedia, not an academic journal. The article is worded as if to assume the reader already knows basically what its rambling on about, like you're being dropped into the middle of a lecture, and that's straight up bad quality control. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:24D4:DE1D:5B6:7CE6 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Length of Article Templates

Please discuss the addition of templates on this page before adding them to the article.

With respect to the questions of:

"The question of This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (September 2022)"

This has already been discussed in Length of Article. Please add your response to that discussion there before adding the template.

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"

That may be said of a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just this one. For example, articles on mathematical, physics, and other topics. The audience that it is of interest to are people interested in neoplatonism. The detail is needed to explain the philosophical and religious system adequately.

Could editors please reasonably and logically discuss these issues on this talk page before addition of templates which seem to be specifically targeting one article as many articles in Wiki could be said to have the same properties.

There are many articles in Wiki that are longer and do not have maintenance templates on them, see topic "Length of Article" for specific examples. If editors think that the Neoplatonism article is too long and needs a template, then why don't the other articles also have the same template. That logically leads one to the conclusion that an article is being specifically targeted.

Examples:

Why isn't there a similar template on ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes] or COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes] to name two on the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages.

Regards Daryl Prasad Darylprasad (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoting myself from User talk:Drmies, for the same reason there are 137,000 articles with no sources at all - Wikipedia is imperfect and has lots of unresolved problems that the community works together to fix, and you can't wish away the existence of these problems by saying "other stuff exists" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that a logical way to add templates to lengthy articles would be to get a list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages) and add templates to the longest first in descending order. This would alleviate the look of selectivity. Having no sources at all is quite a different problem to the simple one of adding a template to a long article. The more you argue this point, the more selective your view becomes. Darylprasad (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And you think selectivity is a vice? It's not, instead it's how all Wikipedians edit. It was just as selective for me to add a too long tag to this article when I came across it doing an unrelated batch cleanup as it was for you to expand this article and not one of Wikipedia's 2.3 million stubs * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

How about you fix the articles that you are working on? "The look of selectivity" is just crap--if I go tag some other random long article, those editors might say the same. So in order to place a valid tag on this one article, you demand that I go and tag how many others? Please specify. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

How about starting with the longest:

(hist) ‎List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle ‎[631,928 bytes]

(hist) ‎2022 in video games ‎[600,624 bytes]

(hist) ‎COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait ‎[574,553 bytes]

(hist) ‎List of 2021–22 NBA season transactions ‎[553,918 bytes]

(hist) ‎2022 in sports ‎[548,162 bytes]

(hist) ‎Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte ‎[548,040 bytes]

(hist) ‎List of common misconceptions ‎[527,701 bytes]

(hist) ‎Firefox version history ‎[523,623 bytes]

(hist) ‎List of Gunsmoke television episodes ‎[520,395 bytes]

(hist) ‎Same-sex union legislation ‎[506,629 bytes]

(hist) ‎Presidency of Donald Trump ‎[497,540 bytes]

11 templates shouldn't take you long. Darylprasad (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, your language is offensive. Could you please stop writing to me. Darylprasad (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way here are two editors who like the article:

"Thank you for your work on Neoplatonism." Hardyplants 21:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"...this page [Neoplatonism] is extremely impressive" Horsesizedduck 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Darylprasad (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow. Bravo. Go tag those articles yourself, and don't tell me what to do. I mean, we can talk "selectivity"--you've edited 105 pages. I've edited 164,602. I could ask you to zip it until you've edited 10,000 pages, or some other random number. You know what I find offensive? That you make readers plow through 11 (for this article), 25 (for Proclus) or 32 footnotes (for Plotinus) just to get through the first sentence. But I'm not sure you've ever thought about the reader. If you want me to stop writing to you, don't keep talking to me--and fix this article, and the others. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What a lovely collaborative environment.Darylprasad (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Part of the task of writing an article on a subject that has more than 1600 years of scholarship is to make it clear where the modern and contemporary information comes from. The citations show the thoughts of major modern and contemporary scholars throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. This is especially important in the first sentences of a historical biography or a historical religious system, so readers are aware of where the basic information in the introduction is coming from. This is especially the case in historical biographies and religious systems where one finds there is a variety of opinions on dates and basic facts. Rather than thinking of citations as a hindrance, please take them as added information, just as important as the text, that alerts readers to the major scholars in the field and what group they are in. The grouping of scholars is shown by multiple citations to one piece of text. Information is not only conveyed by the text, it is also conveyed by the citations and their grouping.Darylprasad (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: The "Very Long" template has been made smaller to reduce the size of the article.Darylprasad (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Damascius

With respect to the 16:14, 14 September 2022‎ edit that said:

"Move all of this to Damascius#Life as it seems to have nothing to do with Neoplatonism per se"

That statement is just totally incorrect as Damascius is a major neoplatonic philosopher.

The edit has been reverted as Damascius is a very important neoplatonic philosopher and content about him is totally appropriate in the neoplatonism article.

Now there are two versions of the same information about Damascius on Wikipedia. There needs to be a new version of Damascius' biography written.Darylprasad (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the article still mentions him even in my version. I don't see why including a lengthy biography of him (or any of the other philosophers) in this article really helps readers understand neoplatonism; if people are interested in a biography they can click on the wikilinks to find one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

The historical figures of a religious and philosophical system are important to the subject. Including a sketch of their lives gives you a human background to the abstract aspects of the topic. Neoplatonism is not just an abstract concept, it is a religious and philosophical system developed by philosophers for centuries, and those philosophers and their background (countries, places, events, students) all help a person interested or studying neoplatonism to have a fuller more rounded understanding of the religion.

Having historical information on the leading neoplatonic philosophers in the topic helps you to create a mental map. You may be familiar with some, unfamiliar with others, but here in this topic, they are all clearly described in chronological order, helping you understand, and confirming and solidifying your understanding of the historical development of the religion through the major philosophers involved.

Scholars have used this method for centuries when writing books about neoplatonism, or any religion for that matter. You need to be first familiar in human terms with what is going on and then get into the abstract doctrines and influences. I am sure you have read articles and books that have the same approach. The human element is what the religion of neoplatonism is all about, and expositions of its major philosophers helps you to understand the motivating forces behind one of the most important religious systems in human history. Darylprasad (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please fix small errors rather than adding templates and warnings

Hi

If there is a small error in the article like using the word "we" please reword the sentence to remove the word. Here I refer to the edit:

16:35, 14 September 2022‎

Rather than adding a template and an edit comment stating the reasons of adding that template, just simply reword the sentence yourself and say in the edit comment that it improved expression. Simple, no drama.

Darylprasad (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Excessive Detail Template

"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2022)"

The above comment may be applied to nearly all Wikipedia articles and so is not needed and has been removed. Neoplatonic scholarship is intricate and the article reflects that intricacy in summary form. Just like a page on differential calculus is for a particular audience, so too a page about the philosophical and religious system of neoplatonism is for a particular audience.

That being said, the introduction is for a general audience. Naturally as the article progresses, it reflects the intricate nature of the subject. This would be true for most articles on philosophy and religious systems. They start with a broad general introduction and then need to get specific and intricate to reflect and accurately summarize the leading scholars in the field.

Also the template itself has been made smaller to reduce the size of the article. No need for a large template when a small once suffices.Darylprasad (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI Drmies. Personally I think only one of "very long" and "overly detailed" is needed since they cover the same ground, but this argument seems like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ICANTHEARYOU and is not convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that only one is necessary and have made changes accordingly. Please note that Wikipedia:Too much detail "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" Darylprasad (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be SUCH a great idea if you stopped thinking about yourself as the one arbiter of this article. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are there so many citations?

Part of the task of writing an article on a subject that has more than 1600 years of scholarship is to make it clear where the modern and contemporary information comes from. The citations indicate the thoughts of major modern and contemporary scholars throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. This is especially important in the first sentences of a historical biography or a historical religious system, so readers are aware of where the basic information in the introduction is coming from. This is especially the case in historical biographies and religious systems where one finds there is a variety of opinions on dates and other basic facts.

Rather than thinking of citations as a hindrance, please take them as added information, just as important as the text, that alerts readers and students of neoplatonism to the major scholars in the field and what group they are in. The grouping of scholars is shown by multiple citations to one piece of text. Information is not only conveyed by the text, it is also conveyed by the citations and their grouping.

Darylprasad (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Summarized biographies of historical figures

The historical figures of a religious and philosophical system are important to the subject. Including a sketch of their lives gives you a human background to the abstract aspects of the topic. Neoplatonism is not just an abstract concept, it is a religious and philosophical system developed by philosophers for centuries, and those philosophers and their background (countries, places, events, students) all help a person interested or studying neoplatonism to have a fuller more rounded understanding of the religion. Having historical information on the leading neoplatonic philosophers in the topic helps you to create a mental map. You may be familiar with some, unfamiliar with others, but here in this topic, they are all clearly described in chronological order, helping you understand, and confirming and solidifying your understanding of the historical development of the religion through the major philosophers involved.

Scholars have used this method for centuries when writing books about neoplatonism, or any religion for that matter. You need to be first familiar in human terms with what is going on and then get into the abstract doctrines and influences. I am sure you have read articles and books that have the same approach. The human element is what the religion of neoplatonism is all about, and expositions of its major philosophers helps you to understand the motivating forces behind one of the most important religious systems in human history. Darylprasad (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted text from the summarized version of Proclus's biography

I have restored the deleted text of Proclus's biography. Although the information has already been mentioned in the article "Proclus", a summary of that information is needed in this topic. Leaving just a little bit of that summary does not make sense. The entire summarized version of the biography is needed for the reasons stated in the above first two paragraphs. Specifically, it introduces key teachers and students of Proclus that were or went on to become important neoplatonic philosophers. It also gives you important information on the neoplatonic school of Athens. Important neoplatonic philosophers like Plutarch of Athens and Syrianus are needed to be placed in a historical context. Proclus' lifestyle is also of importance to one's understanding of neoplatonism. It gives you a human element to those abstract neoplatonic doctrines. The summary of Proclus' works is also needed because they alert the interested reader or student of neoplatonism to some of the greatest commentaries on Plato in history and introduce names of texts that are vitally important to neoplatonism.

Remarks

Please understand that this article is trying to summarize one of the most important and influential religious and philosophical systems in human history. Summaries of the major historical figures, doctrines and influences are needed to give a full and rounded explanation of this religion. All these need to be placed in one topic. To break it up into multiple topics breaks up the continuity of information and fractures the explanation of neoplatonism.

The article is called "Neoplatonism", and in such an article one expects to find all pertinent information on that topic in one place. Of course this article is going to be long. It has to be. What the article is trying to do is to give a reader or student of neoplatonism an article that adequately summarizes a religious system whose doctrines serve as philosophical foundations to Christianity, Islamic theology and Judaism. To explain and aid in the understanding of those doctrines, you need to understand the historical context, the historical figures and the legacy of those doctrines.

Darylprasad (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. You say these biographies are important. Two editors disagree with you. You overplay the importance of neoplatonism, of the importance of the biographies of the major players, and of your own opinion: you are editing against consensus. Your idea of "pertinent information" clearly does not jibe with what others think is pertinent. We have wikis (individual "files" full of information that can be linked) precisely because we should not try to say everything in one single article. That's one of the beauties of the project. Pppery made some careful, judicious edits that improve the article and should be respected. If you wish to improve the article, you could start by reworking the lead so that we don't have 11 footnotes in the first sentence. See MOS:LEADCITE: I fail to see what might be "complex, current, or controversial" about neoplatonism being a "philosophical or religious" system. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Off Topic

I have already asked the above editor not to write to me because of their offensive language in previous posts to me. I will not be responding to that editor ever again. That editor has been muted by me. I am now requesting that editor to stop harassing me by replying to my comments. If another editor wants a response to questions, ask and I will be happy to respond.Darylprasad (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not how this works. You can't exclude me from an article or its talk page--that's yet another mark of ownership. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Anybody can make comments on this talk page, however, I will not respond to editors that use offensive language.

Please note:

Wikipedia:Harassment

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking and banning.

Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, even when no direct communication takes place."

"Harassment, including threats (...[including] "threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia"), intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."

An example of a possible threat and possible intimidation:

"you've edited 105 pages. I've edited 164,602. I could ask you to zip it until you've edited 10,000 pages, or some other random number"

taken from this Talk page's topic "Length of Article Templates"

It is no wonder why I will not respond to that editor anymore.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments on lead

The lead should summarize the key points of the body of the article. This lead concentrates solely on names/dates/schools (the History section), without any summary of the actual ideas or their influence. I'd suggest less emphasis on who and more emphasis on what. Schazjmd (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct. There needs to be a summary in the Introduction (Lead) of the other major subheadings: Doctrines, Influence on religion and philosophy and Influence on literature and aesthetics.Darylprasad (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your request has been completed without lengthening the article. This was achieved by moving certain introductory paragraphs from major subtopics into the Introduction (Lead).Darylprasad (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Daryl, I have reverted your additions to the lead as it made the lead far too long. It clearly violates the guidelines for LEAD. Otherwise, the idea of using the lead summaries from sections isn't all bad, but you went way too far. Keep it much shorter. The normal four paragraphs will be too short for this type of article, but you should still try to keep it to five. I have written an essay about Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. One of its thumbnail ideas is "If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." So you already seem to understand that key idea. Now limit the amount of detail. There should not be any unnecessary elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be reserved for the body of the article. Remember to awaken the reader's interest without satisfying their hunger. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. A concise summary of the topics Doctrines, Influence on religion and philosophy and Influence on literature and aesthetics into one paragraph is a very difficult task. I might have to reduce the historical summary to three paragraphs or two, somehow, as it was hard enough to get it into four paragraphs. That would mean I would have two or three paragraphs for the other three topics. I will work on this. It will take some time. Thank you for your helpful remarks.

Note: I have migrated the changes I made to the summary of neoplatonic doctrines in the introduction into the lead-in for the "Doctrines" topic.

Darylprasad (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Athenian School

Because of the removal of information about Proclus and Damascius, there now needs to be a new topic created about the Athenian School. At the moment, there is a historical gap in the topic "History" with respect to neoplatonic philosophers in that school. I imagine that this information might take on the same format as the topic "The Alexandrian School".Darylprasad (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added skeletal information about the Athenian school.Darylprasad (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The topic "The Athenian School" has been fleshed out and now has a similar format to "The Alexandrian School".Darylprasad (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)