The One

[Bill C]

Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One" is?
I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no knowledge
but God does. I have seen that is that something modern added to
neoplatoism? Curious.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One" is?
I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no knowledge
but God does. I have seen that is that something modern added to
neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.

Ed

[Bill C]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One"
is? I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no
knowledge but God does. I have seen that is that something modern
added to neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.
Ed

OK thanks for the tip. The thing is with Descartes and later it seems to
be more modern. I do like Descartes though I am not crazy about the
skepticism reasoning. Hence I seem to look at the scholastics though
many don't follow their thought.

[Bill C]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One"
is? I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no
knowledge but God does. I have seen that is that something modern
added to neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.
Ed

The thing though to in regards to Kant, he was trying to figure
something out, it escapes me exactly what it was. Anyway, it was in
regards to Aristotle and Aquinas had already answered the question.
Using valid reasoning. So I kind of questioned Kant in the back of my
mind, though I have never read him, so, that's a bit unfair.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Bill C

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One"
is? I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no
knowledge but God does. I have seen that is that something modern
added to neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.
Ed

The thing though to in regards to Kant, he was trying to figure
something out, it escapes me exactly what it was. Anyway, it was in
regards to Aristotle and Aquinas had already answered the question.
Using valid reasoning. So I kind of questioned Kant in the back of my
mind, though I have never read him, so, that's a bit unfair.

We have the makings here of a good discussion about good and bad, right
and wrong; so I'll give my best as an intro.

I've never read Plotinus. I've read about him, however; opinions of others.
I have, on the other hand, read almost everything of Plato that
survives. And one thing I can say, is that Plato's written works are
astonishing for their breadth of understanding; and that what we call
"Platonism" was a passing phase of his thought.
I've also googled a bit for Plotinus and The One.

I connect three things; Plato's form of The Good, St John's "In the
beginning was the Word"; Plotinus' "The One".
I have only, therefore, to handle Plato's "Good" to handle all three.

In Plato's theory of forms, the form of good is the top one, the one
that all others strive after; beauty, truth and justice strive after the
good.
The problem here, as Aristotle pointed out, is that Plato gives no
examples of good from life itself. It remains a mystical concept,
something intuitively grasped by some but not by others. And, as such,
it's beyond reason; beyond science. So that, if I say "I can't grasp
this at all", then you have no way to reveal it to me. You could praise
it to the skies, tell me how much it adds to your life, even say that
you might be prepared to fly planes into American skyscrapers and kill
thousands of innocent civilians and feel justified; but I couldn't follow.
And in the latter sentence we've strayed into my concept of evil;
violence against man for bigoted reasons. It rings in my head like the
misguided delusions of a druggie, or a schizophrenic, or a serial-killer
of prostitutes.

Try reconciling "All men are born equal" with "Some men know what is
good and some don't". It can't be done. We might end up storming the
Capitol and establishing the rule of "Might is right".

Ed

[Bill C]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The One"
is? I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has no
knowledge but God does. I have seen that is that something modern
added to neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.
Ed

The thing though to in regards to Kant, he was trying to figure
something out, it escapes me exactly what it was. Anyway, it was in
regards to Aristotle and Aquinas had already answered the question.
Using valid reasoning. So I kind of questioned Kant in the back of my
mind, though I have never read him, so, that's a bit unfair.

We have the makings here of a good discussion about good and bad, right
and wrong; so I'll give my best as an intro.
I've never read Plotinus. I've read about him, however; opinions of others.
I have, on the other hand, read almost everything of Plato that
survives. And one thing I can say, is that Plato's written works are
astonishing for their breadth of understanding; and that what we call
"Platonism" was a passing phase of his thought.
I've also googled a bit for Plotinus and The One.
I connect three things; Plato's form of The Good, St John's "In the
beginning was the Word"; Plotinus' "The One".
I have only, therefore, to handle Plato's "Good" to handle all three.
In Plato's theory of forms, the form of good is the top one, the one
that all others strive after; beauty, truth and justice strive after the
good.
The problem here, as Aristotle pointed out, is that Plato gives no
examples of good from life itself. It remains a mystical concept,
something intuitively grasped by some but not by others. And, as such,
it's beyond reason; beyond science. So that, if I say "I can't grasp
this at all", then you have no way to reveal it to me. You could praise
it to the skies, tell me how much it adds to your life, even say that
you might be prepared to fly planes into American skyscrapers and kill
thousands of innocent civilians and feel justified; but I couldn't follow.
And in the latter sentence we've strayed into my concept of evil;
violence against man for bigoted reasons. It rings in my head like the
misguided delusions of a druggie, or a schizophrenic, or a serial-killer
of prostitutes.
Try reconciling "All men are born equal" with "Some men know what is
good and some don't". It can't be done. We might end up storming the
Capitol and establishing the rule of "Might is right".

The rule of the might is right, has been going on for 1,000s of years,
nothing I see has changed. People are people, when they are unhappy with
their gov'ment, they riot. The government will have them eliminated and
labelled "insurrectionists". These "rights to silenece..." and things
the police don't want you to say was never meant for non-land owners in
the beginning. I find Aquinas to be very good with this. He says man's
nature is not evil or bad and man knows what is wrong and right. Sin
darkens this, until every thought is evil. Though we know wrong from
right we can't see it and it gets worse and worse. Concupiscence and
such. And it gets worse and worse without remedy. Now as far as Kant
goes, I can't say what he thinks though I wish I could. I will be
checking in with him. And Aristotle Ethics too. But with irasciple
appetite and other appetite being out of control in use, not a radically
new nature, just out of control. No on off switch anymore, we have a
problem.

The transcendental virtues you mention, Good, Beauty and Truth all
beings want, they are gifts, graces, virtues that must be given. The
human virtues are what we strive for. Or should even if no one else sees
it you do, as Marcus Arelius would say in his Stoic journal.

Post by Ed Cryer
Ed

[Bill C]

Post by Bill C

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Bill C
Has anyone studied Plotinus enough to understand what this "The
One" is? I keep seeing goodness and all reach for that. The one has
no knowledge but God does. I have seen that is that something
modern added to neoplatoism? Curious.

You'd benefit from reading Bishop Berkeley on empirical idealism; or
even Kant's transcendental idealism.
Ed

The thing though to in regards to Kant, he was trying to figure
something out, it escapes me exactly what it was. Anyway, it was in
regards to Aristotle and Aquinas had already answered the question.
Using valid reasoning. So I kind of questioned Kant in the back of my
mind, though I have never read him, so, that's a bit unfair.

We have the makings here of a good discussion about good and bad,
right and wrong; so I'll give my best as an intro.
I've never read Plotinus. I've read about him, however; opinions of others.
I have, on the other hand, read almost everything of Plato that
survives. And one thing I can say, is that Plato's written works are
astonishing for their breadth of understanding; and that what we call
"Platonism" was a passing phase of his thought.
I've also googled a bit for Plotinus and The One.
I connect three things; Plato's form of The Good, St John's "In the
beginning was the Word"; Plotinus' "The One".
I have only, therefore, to handle Plato's "Good" to handle all three.
In Plato's theory of forms, the form of good is the top one, the one
that all others strive after; beauty, truth and justice strive after
the good.
The problem here, as Aristotle pointed out, is that Plato gives no
examples of good from life itself. It remains a mystical concept,
something intuitively grasped by some but not by others. And, as such,
it's beyond reason; beyond science. So that, if I say "I can't grasp
this at all", then you have no way to reveal it to me. You could
praise it to the skies, tell me how much it adds to your life, even
say that you might be prepared to fly planes into American skyscrapers
and kill thousands of innocent civilians and feel justified; but I
couldn't follow.
And in the latter sentence we've strayed into my concept of evil;
violence against man for bigoted reasons. It rings in my head like the
misguided delusions of a druggie, or a schizophrenic, or a
serial-killer of prostitutes.
Try reconciling "All men are born equal" with "Some men know what is
good and some don't". It can't be done. We might end up storming the
Capitol and establishing the rule of "Might is right".

The rule of the might is right, has been going on for 1,000s of years,
nothing I see has changed. People are people, when they are unhappy with
their gov'ment, they riot. The government will have them eliminated and
labelled "insurrectionists". These "rights to silenece..." and things
the police don't want you to say was never meant for non-land owners in
the beginning. I find Aquinas to be very good with this. He says man's
nature is not evil or bad and man knows what is wrong and right. Sin
darkens this, until every thought is evil. Though we know wrong from
right we can't see it and it gets worse and worse. Concupiscence and
such. And it gets worse and worse without remedy. Now as far as Kant
goes, I can't say what he thinks though I wish I could. I will be
checking in with him. And Aristotle Ethics too. But with irasciple
appetite and other appetite being out of control in use, not a radically
new nature, just out of control. No on off switch anymore, we have a
problem.
The transcendental virtues you mention, Good, Beauty and Truth all
beings want, they are gifts, graces, virtues that must be given. The
human virtues are what we strive for. Or should even if no one else sees
it you do, as Marcus Arelius would say in his Stoic journal.

Post by Ed Cryer
Ed

PS schizophrenia is a disease of course. 1 of 100 they say have it and
many don't know. Major Depression and anxiety are really serious and
more widespread diseases. We've always had them. There comes a time when
people want more, the government says "No" and there is riot and civil
war. The politicians aren't just going to give their power away. Nothing
new their. The sad things that went on depicted in Hugo's Les Miserables
continue to go on and income and poverty are worse now than ever. Income
inequality I mean to say. Hence with mental illness many can't get by
without some type of "medication" so they self medicate, another sad
story. I have never abused drugs but talked to some who have. One man
said his brother introduced him to it and he thought it was "cool". He's
starkly against it now.

Cheers, ttyl