Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-29-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

In any case, should we assume that your acquaintance with what Plotinus said is primarily through Russell(and maybe a few discussions of Plotinus within discussions of something else) )? You've not actually read Plotinus himself?

Yes or no, Pete.

If yes, what (presumably English only) Plotinian texts have you read?

The Enneads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

The Logos of Plotinus is therefore related to Spirit (as mind, intellect), but it is not equal to the One.

Therefore??? How does this follow? And from what of the above does it follow?

It immediately follows that everything in the metaphysics of Plotinus is subordinate to the One, and nothing is equal to it.

Quote:

Where in the above does Russel speak at all of the λόγος, or of its use by Plotinus, let alone of any -- alleged or real -- relation of the λόγος to the One, or of the λόγος as a part (and one third of) of an alleged Plotinian trinity?

Are you assuming that behind the term "soul" that Russell (correctly) notes Plotinus speaks of is the Greek λόγος ?

Whether the logos exists behind the term "soul" or the term "spirit" (which is inclusive of mind and intellect) - which I have stated above - the Greek logos is not the supreme One of Plotinus and that it subordinate to it.

Hence the equation of the Jesus and the Logos in John implies that Jesus is not the same substance as the Plotinic One.

Quote:

And with respect to your claim that the metaphysics of Plotinus begins and ends [sic] with a trinity, does Plotinus actually use Τριάς at all, let alone of the three entities of the One, the mind, and the soul? If so, does he note that the λόγος is part of it?

Yes or no, Pete. And if so, where may I find him doing so??

I don't think he mentions it, but I have not conducted an in depth analysis of the Enneads yet.

Quote:

Does he speak of his three entities in his alleged trinity as equal to, and unified with, one another, let alone in terms of, and on the basis of their, οὐσία, as Arius and the orthodox did when they spoke of the basis of the relationship that they knew existed between between the Father and the λόγος/Son?Does Plotinus ever speak of the elements of his alleged trinity in terms ofὑπόστᾰσις as Arius and the orthodox did of theirs? Yes or no, Pete.

No, I am unaware that Plotinus directly developed an expression of trinity as such. AFAIK such development has arisen by means of subsequent analysis of the writings of Plotinus.

Quote:

And if he did, does he use the term with the same meaning that Arius and the orthodox did.

Yes or no, Pete.

No, and I dispute the orthodox claim that Arius was expressing orthodox views.

Plotinus, like Diogenes Laertius, maintains a total silence on the Christians.

When Momigliano writes the following about Diogenes Laertius, he may as well be writing about Plotinus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM on Diogenes Laertius

"His silence on the Christians is total. We need hardly add that no
educated man of the second or third century could be unacquainted with
the elementary fact of life that the Christians existed and were
persecuted. Diogenes wrote as if they did not exist and there were
no Christian philosophy. The silence on Christian philosophy, like
the silence on Roman philosophy, was intentional. What Diogenes tries
to present is a world of philosophy which is exclusively Greek,
pre-Roman and pre-Christian."

Quote:

Yes or no, Pete.

Yes or no, Pete.

I ask you one question which you have not answered.

I do not buy the official church dogma.

Do you (buy this dogma)?

Quote:

Did Plotinus ever speak of the relationship between the One and the λόγος as that of a πατὴρ to a υἱός and of a υἱός to a πατὴρ as both Arius and the orthodox and the author of the Gospel of John did?

No.

Quote:

If your answers to these questions are no, then isn't your claim that Arius is speaking of the Plotinian logos (which you have yet to define) rather than the logos of the Gospel of John when he speaks of the Logos and denies that it existed before Constantine's time (as you have claimed the "once" that Arius refers to in his declaration that "there was a once when he was not" means and refers to) is very poorly supported?

No.

Quote:

After all, the validity of your case depends on your being able show that the answer is yes to all the questions above.

No it does not. There are many far more appropriate questions that need to be answered in this issue.

One such question is this ...

Were there "many philosophers" in attendance at the Council of Nicaea?

How do you answer this question Jeffrey?
Do you answer it with a yes or a no?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-29-2013, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

(even though, if we wish to be precise, you should be speaking of Neo-Platonic metaphysics).

None of the so-called Neo-Platonists would have referred to themselves as "Neo-Platonists". They considered themselves to be the true followers of Plato, consistently following a great and well respected historical lineage, sourced with Plato's original teachings. Into this definition we might also introduce the concept of Plato's "Canonical Books" and the concept of the "Apostolic Succession" of teachers which was revived by the reverence that all his subsequent followers gave to the 3rd century Ammonius Saccas.

Quote:

"Plato's dialogues formed a coherent system structured "not in any unwritten doctrine but in an ordering of the corpus which was designed to lead the student from the experimental or tentative stage, a mere testing of his wits, to the communication in which all truth becomes luminous to the intellect" ..... These Platonists regarded themselves as true followers of Plato's teaching, focusing not only on the philological analysis of the dialogues but mainly on the philosophical discussion of the truths within them."

- Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2007) of Mark Edwards', "Culture and Philosophy in the Age of Plotinus".

It remains an historical fact that where the Roman Emperor Gallienus publically praised Plotinus, the Roman Emperor Constantine publically executed Sopater.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 11:12 PM

Quote:

which was revived by the reverence that all his subsequent followers gave to the 3rd century Ammonius Saccas.

who was a Christian at one time

mountainman · 03-29-2013, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But why would any Christian, not to such prominent ones as Athanasius, or such Christian sympathizers like Constantine, give a rats ass about a purely philosophical dispute over, or a notice of, what a pagan philosopher said, let alone view it as in any way threatening to their concept of what God did in the incarnation -- which ultimately was what the Arian controversy was about?

That the Arian controversy was some airy fairy theological and philosophical debate is being disputed. Constantine and Athanasius were railing against Arius and the Arians over something far more serious.

The Arian controversy was a reaction to the appearance of the Jesus figure and the New Testament as the holy writ of the sceptical Greek world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Nay, so notorious did the scandal of these proceedings become, that the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

The Jesus story was being ridiculed thank fuck.

Who were the UNBELIEVERS?

What did they NOT believe?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-29-2013, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

which was revived by the reverence that all his subsequent followers gave to the 3rd century Ammonius Saccas.

who was a Christian at one time

Eusebius, followed by Jerome, falsely asserts that Ammonius, the founder of NeoPlatonism, was born a Christian, and remained faithful to Christianity throughout his life. He wrote that Ammonius produced several scholarly works, most notably "The Harmony of Moses and Jesus". [1] Eusebius also wrote that Ammonius composed a synopsis of the four canonical gospels, traditionally assumed to be the "Ammonian Sections", now known as the Eusebian Canons.[2] Eusebius attacks Porphyry for saying that Ammonius apostatized early in his life and left no writings behind him. Ammianus does not mention a Christian Ammonius.

Mark Edwards, in Ammonius, teacher of Origen (Journal of Ecclesiastical History) in 1993 found it necessary to stress the distinction between the two "Ammonii".

Porphyry and Eusebius, antagonistic witnesses, agree that one of Origen's early tutors was called Ammonius. This was also the name of the tutor of Origen's younger contemporary Plotinus, and it has long been the fashion to argue or assume that they were pupils of the same man. Heinrich Dorrie perhaps remains alone in his view that the two men called Ammonius were distinct, a view for which I shall argue in this article, though not entirely on Dorrie's grounds.

In bringing together the evidence of the primary sources, Porphyry and Eusebius, Edwards uses the name Ammonius P wherever an author is speaking of the teacher of Plotinus, and where the teacher of Origen is intended, Edwards used the name Ammonius O. More recently, the editor of the Platonic Succession website, Phil Norfleet, summarises the problems as follows:

Was Ammonius a Christian or a pagan? Porphyry says he was a pagan; Eusebius demurs. Another Church Father, Jerome, in his work entitled On Illustrious Men (Chapter 55) says: "Porphyry falsely accused him [Ammonius] of having become a heathen again, after being a Christian, but it is certain that he continued a Christian until the very end of his life." Did Ammonius the Neoplatonist write any books? Porphyry and Plotinus both indicate that Ammonius left no written works. Conversely, Eusebius asserts that Ammonius was celebrated for the writings that he left. This confusion in identity may be due to the fact that Ammonius taught both Plotinus the Neoplatonist and Origen the Christian; later scholars on both sides wrote their own opinions about Ammonius, ignorant of the historical context in which the man lived. These two schools of philosophy and Christianity, were diametrically opposed and constantly at war with one another, during the third, fourth and fifth centuries. I have no opinion re the writing of any books, although I note that Pythagoreans were not supposed to put their more important teachings into writing. Also, in my view, it is very unlikely that the founder of Neoplatonic philosophy should have been at the same time a Christian. The unequivocal disagreement between Porphyry and Eusebius on these two important issues provides support for believing that there may have been two different men: Ammonius Saccas the Neoplatonist, and Ammonius of Alexandria, the Christian.

It is the exception now that scholars, such as H. Langerbeck in The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas: and the Connection of Aristotelian and Christian Elements Therein, JHS 1957, argue for one identity.

Critical scholars in the past have remarked that Eusebius was presumably confusing Ammonius with the Platonist of the same name, but I disagree with this assessment.

The systematic confusion of identity between figures in the 3rd century Platonic lineage with "shadowy Christians" is not evidence of confusion, but suggests an origin of systematic pious forgery via identity fraud.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-29-2013, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

My position is that Arius was trying to deal with the sudden and unexpected "elevation to the purple" of the new testament bible story figure of Jesus over the traditional ideas of divinity.

But why must we assume that Arius was 'inventing' something new?

FFS Constantine was the one inventing (or at least introducing from obscurity) something new.

Whether or not Constantine commissioned the forgery of the NT or whether the NT was written under the inspiration of the Holy Fucking Spirit in the 1st century, as far as the people of the Roman Empire c.324/325 CE were concerned, Constantine was introducing something new, not Arius FFS. You don't understand this position do you Stephan.

Constantine is the protagonist with the new agenda.

I see Arius as the antagonist, trying to defend the Greek traditions.

Quote:

The Arians themselves only claimed to be carrying on the traditions of Dionysius (c. 250 CE).

How can you be so nieve? The literature of the Arians was condemned. The Arians were persecuted. The writings of Arius were burnt. His name and his memory was subject to Constantinian "memoriae damnatio". Letters in the name of Arius, expressing orthodox sentiments were forged.

Quote:

They were probably too scared to invoke Clement and Origen.

Let's forget the Clementine forgeries for the moment.

Are you aware that there are now considered to be two different figures called Origen in the 3rd century?

A recent and in-depth treatment of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism ( hypotyposeis.org blogsite ) on this specific issue concludes that:

"Origen the Platonists is almost (but not quite) certainly a different person
than Origen the Christian and his interpretation of the Parmenides was very unusual."

In the case of the Christian Ammonius Identity Fraud, there are few if any consequences if Eusebius's false assertions are denounced for what they manifestly are - pious forgery.

However in the case of the Christian Origen Identity Fraud these consequences are serious.

But why would Eusebius wanted to have associated his own Christian lineage with the Platonists of the 3rd century?

Did the Christians actually have a lineage of Apostolic Succession via Eusebius's list of Bishops?

Did the Christians have physical church buildings as is asserted by Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

Preparatio evangelica is one of the boldest attempts ever made
to show continuity between pagan and Christian thought."

"[Eusebius], the witness of the last persecution and the advisor and apologist of Constantine
was in a vantage position to appreciate the autonomy and strength of the institution
that had compelled the Roman state to surrender at the Milvian Bridge in 312.

Though anxious to preserve the pagan cultural heritage in the new Christian order -
indeed very anxious, as we shall soon see, to use the pagan tradition for his Ecclesiastical History -
Eusebius knew that the Christians were a nation, and a victorious nation at that;
and that their history could not be told except within the framework of the Church in which they lived.

Furthermore, he was well aware that the Christian nation was what it was
by virtue of its being both the oldest and the newest nation of the world."

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
Arnaldo Momigliano, (1961-62), p.139

stephan huller · 03-29-2013, 11:44 PM

God this same old stupid routine. Don't you ever get tired of it? You still haven't explained away why Clement of Alexandria isn't a real person or why his writings speak of two logoi - which corresponds it would seem to the Creator and the Christ as a power who secretly existed apart from the god of the Jews.

mountainman · 03-30-2013, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

God this same old stupid routine.

But its about time you acknowledged that modern scholars recognise two Ammonius Saccas' (one a Christian the other a Platonist), two Origens (one a Christian the other a Platonist), and more recently two Anatolii ((one a Christian the other a Platonist).

God the same old stupid routine: "But we are only talking about the Christians in antiquity. Who gives a fuck about the duplicate named Platonists littering the 3rd century with their stupid claims of historicity?

And didn't someone claim that Platonist Porphyry wrote Christian literature?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-30-2013, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

but you're dodging the question again Pete. No one would take issue with Alexandrian Christians being influenced by neo-Platonism. It's your (apparent) denial that Arius connected Jesus with the Logos of the gospel of John

But surely it was the author of John who first connected the original Greek literary expressions of the logos (via Heraclites) with Jesus when he wrote the gospel of John.

Via Heraclitus??? You've got to be joking. Have you not read the Wisdom of Solomon? You certainly haven't done any reading in the critical commentaries on John regarding the origin of his Logos concept.

Quote:

My position is that Arius was trying to deal with the sudden and unexpected "elevation to the purple" of the new testament bible story figure of Jesus over the traditional ideas of divinity. My claim is that these traditional ideas of divinity, at that time c.325 CE, were Platonic and that Plotinus (in his "Enneads", preserved in Porphyry) recapitulated the Platonic literature.

In dealing with John's connection of the purportedly historical Jesus with the Greek logos, Arius was pointing out that the logos is not the same as the Plotinic conception of the (supreme) One (whom the Christians call the God Father).

Please show me where even Plotinus says that the Logos was the same as the One.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-30-2013, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Were there "many philosophers" in attendance at the Council of Nicaea?

How do you answer this question Jeffrey?
Do you answer it with a yes or a no?

I answer it by asking what this is quote from and whether the Greek word for "philosopher" stands behind the expression you have in quotes, and if it does, what meaning the term bore" at the time in which the writer of your quote wrote.

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2013, 11:44 PM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	God this same old stupid routine. Don't you ever get tired of it? You still haven't explained away why Clement of Alexandria isn't a real person or why his writings speak of two logoi - which corresponds it would seem to the Creator and the Christ as a power who secretly existed apart from the god of the Jews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.