Talk:Plotinus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Year of Birth[edit]

If Plotinus was 66 when he died in 270, he should have been born in 204, not 205. I dare not simply change it as there is possibly more to it, like contradicting information not discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Same Iamblichus[edit]

In the "Excursion to Persia and Return to Rome" section of the article, there is mention of Ariston the son of Iamblichus, with a link to the article on the Iamblichus who developed Neo-Platonism after Plotinus. Since this Iamblichus was about 25 when Plotinus died, it doesn't seem likely that Plotinus taught his son's wife! Maybe the link should be removed. Ineffabilis (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008

I looked this up. It does seem that it could be true if one assumes that Plotinus taught Amphiclea when she was young, and that she only married Iamblichus' son after Plotinus' death (perhaps twenty years later). I added a reference anyway. Singinglemon (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

Could the older discussions on this talk page be archived? This page is far too long and most of it is pretty old. Pollinosisss (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I created the archive myself. Pollinosisss (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Influenced Bergson[edit]

I added Bergson as an influencee. See this source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1PwTZPW1ohQC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=Bergson+influenced+by+Plotinus&source=bl&ots=RoTGn2J0Xr&sig=S7czXbG0KCOqRo8v9prDb_Wxoz8&hl=en&ei=yQi1S-DsBoTGlQfG1uBx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bergson%20influenced%20by%20Plotinus&f=false

"That the philosophy of Henri Bergson is significantly influenced by the doctrines of Plotinus is indicated by the many years Bergson devoted to teaching Plotinus and the many parallels in their respective philosophies. This influence has been discussed at some length by Bergson's contemporaries, such as Emile Bréhier and Rose-Marie Rossé-Bastide..."

128.164.62.227 (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mysticism[edit]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the aritcle about Plotinus's mysticism. He didn't just describe the One but claimed it could be experienced. This seems to be an omission. Any comments? Oxford73 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are quite right. That appears to be a very typical phenomenon, academics analyzing the "theory of life" in detail, never being aware that they themselves are forever limited to an existence as paper-eating mice, since they cannot even imagine any other existence... - Hence such ways of "presenting" topics XY...
Regards, -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Same thought. Plotinus refers to methods to acuire henosis, oneness; yet, these methods are not being described... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Christianity[edit]

The article originally mentioned the influence of Neoplatonism, and gave a good example comparing Eastern Orthodox to Catholocism to Aristotle and finally Plotinus. I inserted the quote from Russell between these two phrases; The quote is now an authoritative support of the assertion that Plotinus had influence, and introduces the example provided by an earlier contributer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviticus Orion (talkcontribs) 23:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Intellect concept[edit]

This is a funny line: "The One is not just an intellectual concept". In Greek philosophy, as with heidegger, "intellect" goes beyond mere ration, and includes the leap from mere "fact" and rational analysis to a deeper, 'intuitive' understanding. Maybe we should use another word here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being asked here. Assuming that "ration" above means "ratio," the concerns are different. The page is highlighting the ontological reality of the One, rather than as a mere construct of intellectual power (a more Aristotelian theory of geometry might say this about the objects of mathematics). The distinction between intellectus, ratio, and the third (the Latin term escapes me, but the Greek is δόξα) while relevant to Plotinus's epistemology, is not strictly relevant to the ontological claims about the three primary hypostases. The claim cited above is a claim about the reality of the object—it is not a mere ens rationis, but (in an obviously equivocal sense to its normal usage) an ens realis. How we have knowledge of it is through intuitive apprehension (Latin: intellectus). The kinds of knowledge play a larger role in Proclus (Elements of Theology, and the paraphrase/epitome The Book of Causes). Suffice to say the sentence is fine as is. 53backes (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plotinus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)