Elijah

The two words and their definitions please.

Horatio Parker

I'm not sure what you're asking but AFAICT, the two words are the One and the Nous, the first and second hypostases.

You argued a position that the One and the Nous are different Gods based on Aristotle's Law of Identity.

Guessing from your subsequent statements, that's your belief, and not a recapitulation of Plotinus. Which is fine with me, so long as you're not claiming consistency with Plotinus.

Elijah

What is the difference between the “universe of forms” and the Pleroma? Is the “One” the label for the “universe of the forms” or just the part that isn’t intelligible? If it is actually the universe of forms what is the label for the part that is isn’t intelligible? Where does Plotinus explain the relationship between that unknown part and the universe of forms?

We seem to be missing a label for either the two parts unified, or a label for the part that isn’t intelligible.
I just said Plotinus didn’t believe the universe had a beginning, and why don’t you show where Plato thought the universe had been around forever.
What do you mean, not speaking in metaphor? How is someone further away from the One inside the cave? And how should we distinguish the actors creating the shadows on the cave wall from the Sun outside?
No I’m looking for the definitions of the word “God” and now “Hypostases”. In particular what is it about the nature of both of those words that make you claim it isn’t a second God he is speaking about, but a second hypostases. Where do those two labels come in conflict?

Horatio Parker

I'm limiting my answer to this: the One is the totality of the forms ie the unity of the formal universe.

For the rest, I suggest a book or course on the Republic and/or Plotinus.

Every time I attempt to focus this discussion you widen it. You don't defend your positions and you don't make it clear when you're representing your own beliefs as opposed to anothers. I'm not touching any of the above.


Try Google.
I already responded with a cite. And it has nothing to do with the words.

I give up; where do they come into conflict?

Elijah

Am I supposed to really believe that you that you are choosing to not answer the question and not that it is you can't answer the question?

I'm just going to suspect that you can't support your position. Or much less, explain it.

Again, I'm just going to assume you can't answer the question, meaning that you don't even have a clear understanding of the words you are typing.

Another cite would be nice but I'm asking for the issue you have with the "god" label that you have been unable to articulate.

You should know because you think that "god" isn't what he is talking about by hypostases is, without determining what the difference is between those words. If I'm wrong and you actually have some understanding of the words then prove it.

Horatio Parker

The questions aren't hard. I'm under no obligation to tutor basic Plato besides being entitled to make my own judgements regarding sincerity and comprehension. In your case they're lacking. Believe whatever you like.

You are going to have to guess because clearly you are in no position to know.

I don't have an issue with the god label. That's your construction; how you came by it I have no idea. I use God in a theological or mythical context. In a philosophical context, I tend to use it sparingly.

I know he's not talking about the hypostases of the One being separate Gods, because that's fundamental to Platonic(or Neo-Platonic) metaphysics. A hypostasis is a principle or view of the One. They are useful concepts because we don't exist in a state of continual enlightenment or communion with the One. It takes motivation and effort and the approach is in stages.

Also I posted the text. "Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?" I quoted from Against the Gnostics. I suggest you read it.

The hypostases en toto are a unity, the One: the One equals God. Although we continually participate in the One, we are not usually aware of it. Becoming aware of it is is described as an ascent from Body to desire(Soul) to mind(Nous, Logos, Intellectual-Principle, Form of the Good, Idea of the Good) to transcendence(One). Conversely, the emanation from the One is envisioned as a descent from One to Mind to Soul etc.

Elijah

I’m going to believe you don’t have enough labels to put forward your position coherently. I’m going to remain uncertain if you are aware of the situation.
I’m not here to prove I’m a psychic, but instead you are trying to prove you understand the words you are using.
What changes about the word from a theological context to philosophical one, so that it is useable in one situation but avoided in another?
Should we understand “principle/emanation” as a noun, adverb or adjective/adverb? What is the relationship between the One(collective) and the material world? Is matter a “principle/emanation” of the One(collective), similar to how the Nous is a principle/emanation of the One(individual)?

You provide one quote that isn’t saying what you think it is because you didn’t read the above paragraphs. And if you did then hopefully you would see that he is making the exact same argument as I against what you are suggesting, based on the basic law of identity. Which you are unfamiliar with so can’t include it when trying to understand what an educated person from that time is trying to say.

“We need not, then, go seeking any other Principles; this — the One and the Good — is our First; next to it follows the Intellectual Principle, the Primal Thinker; and upon this follows Soul. Such is the order in nature. The Intellectual Realm allows no more than these and no fewer.

Those who hold to fewer Principles must hold the identity of either Intellectual-Principle and Soul or of Intellectual-Principle and The First; but we have abundantly shown that these are distinct.”

How are we not aware of the One(collective), or is this an issue with not having enough labels, and you are speaking of the One(individual)? Isn’t all the thoughts running through my mind, me being aware of the One/collective? And what do you mean by effort? This is a correct thinking issue, not a brain muscle deal. What is required to change of our thinking or is preventing us from being aware of both the One(collective) and the One(individual)?

Horatio Parker

Maybe the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will have better luck than I:

Elijah

It isn't about luck, but about having the decency to answer the questions asked of you. But lets try it your way.

The role of Intellect is to account for the real distinctness of the plethora of Forms, virtually united in the One. Thus, in the above mathematical example, the fact that numbers are virtually united does not gainsay the fact that each has an identity. The way that identity is maintained is by each and every Form being thought by an eternal Intellect. And in this thinking, Intellect ‘attains’ the One in the only way it possibly can. It attains all that can be thought; hence, all that can be thought ‘about’ the One.

Intellect is the principle of essence or whatness or intelligibility as the One is the principle of being. Intellect is an eternal instrument of the One's causality (see V 4. 1, 1-4; VI 7. 42, 21-23).

Emphasis mine.

Horatio Parker

This doesn't say that Intellect is a separate entity from the One. Everything having identity, has that identity through participation in the One.

Do you think this supports your case? It doesn't. Instead, it suggests that everything has Intellect as well, since Intellect is contained in the One. IOW, every object that can be differentiated also contains intelligibility. So the number "7" has identity through the One and also has Intellect eg it's more than "6" and less than "8".

Again, because they can be viewed separately doesn't mean they *are* separate. There is no Intellect without the One.