WHAT DO WE WANT FROM THE GODS?

[Xenophon]

They did make You. The Story of Titanomachy is as much about Humans becoming Humans as it is about Zeus becoming a God. Chronos is Time, there was Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers, that was a Real Split, and Hunter Gatherers were sometimes like Homeless People on the Streets Today when they weren’t Native American Tribes.

and before that there was no Farming, just God and the Angels (some are Demons). The Gods.

Do tell the Vatican that someone on the internet knows their theology better than they do and that they’ve been wrongly catechising their priests for 800 years. They’ll take everything you have to say with the utmost seriousness.

I haven’t read Scotus directly and, unlike you, I don’t comment on things that I haven’t learnt. Ficino, however, does use Plato’s terminology. Of course he does. He was translating him!

Honest to goodness, I think I’m too quick to use a person’s politics as an indication of the health of their soul. So often, good old fashioned stupidity is explanation enough.

We’re done now.

A very facile reading of the situation. There would be no orthodoxy without Origen. That later Orthodox found certain of his views embarrassing and tried to cover up their own tracks is neither here nor there. Many of the key figures in orthodox theology were open admirers of Origen. The first Philokalia, compiled by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzen, was a compilation of extracts from Origen. These two men along with Gregory of Nyssa are the main figures responsible for the theology expressed in the second ecumenical council and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed that Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants still recite today. And Origen’s hermeneutic approach basically set the standard for later orthodox commentaries on scripture.Note also that Maximus the Confessor, another thoroughgoing Platonist, laid the theological foundation for the 6th ecumenical council. So no, not marginal of all.



Yes, I see Catholics everywhere talking about substance and accidents.



Everyone take note: the Oxford phd is here to inform us that, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (9th century) and Marsilio Ficino (15th century) made their translations of Platonist works before the fall of Rome. Neat!



Ah, it’s mental activity, that settles it. You’re just pushing words around with no thought to their highly variable use and connotation in history.



It’s not really a secret. Eg,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hey it all comes together in Hegel. //;-=)

The article on Aquinas has all the scholarly chops, you are quite correct. It strikes me, though, that the piece's point---while on one level incontestable---comes to far less that its author thinks. He remarks that Aquinas might have been either a "witting or an unwitting" Neo-Platonist. This is a good deal like saying Karl Marx was a "Kantian." On the one hand, yes. Without the Kantian turn, there would have been no Marx. But the characterization sheds little real light on the latter's work. So too does reading Aquinas singularly fail to put one much in mind of the Neo-Platonist view of the cosmos.

Alfred North Whitehead famously opined "All Western philosophy is but a series of footnotes to Plato." In the matter of St. Thomas Aquinas, Neo-Platonist, we seem to have a percolation of this. The article in question strikes me as a scholar taking a slightly outre position trying to win reputation's spurs. Which is not uncommon in academia; scarcely an earthquake in intellectual history. I have known reputable scholars go purple in the face "demonstrating" that Aristotle's physics "anticipated" Einstein's. Whilst they purpled, the rest of us backed quietly to the nearest exit.

 

[Romolo]

Belief brought me closer to the world as it was before industrialization, before electricity, before the “big city life”. It made me humble. That’s what the Gods give me. When the Aztecs call their fearsome God Tezcatlipoca “The night, the wind, the sorcerer, our lord”, I can tap into that phrase and feel something that goes beyond rational thought.

 

[pixel_fortune]

My approach to devotion is much like my approach to love (romantic and my love for close friends):

That is, you can be completely in love and deeply admire your beloved without putting yourself below them or debasing yourself. Even when they gave qualities you don't have, you can think "that's so cool, they're so cool" without feeling like you have less fundamental worth than them.

This to me is a very natural model to follow: I don't believe in moral relativism so I see no reason not to apply my own values about what healthy love is to divinity.

Post automatically merged: Apr 7, 2024

That said, I can still see some appeal in obedience to God.

This is much more theoretical, just a framework I've been thinking about

I've learned in my ordinary life that I don't like or aspire to managerial work. I want to do the work itself, and have a good boss.
Unfortunately, since most bosses are idiots, the only way to have a good boss is to be your own.

But on the rare occasions I have worked for a good boss, it's been GREAT - you really can just trust them to have their eye on the big picture and assign you to tasks that have value and purpose. It's so much less stressful.

So given that, I think it wouldn't be so crazy to delegate a bit more to a god you trusted

It's also a great feeling to be able to delegate to an expert who's genuinely competent. Again, rare, but when you really can say "I'll leave this with you" and know they will handle it and not half-ass it and actually research to make sure they're doing it to the optimal way etc, be as conscientious as you would, it's a huge relief. So I can imagine eg delegating my love life to the expert in such matters (Aphrodite or whoever)

 

[Xingtian]

The article on Aquinas has all the scholarly chops, you are quite correct. It strikes me, though, that the piece's point---while on one level incontestable---comes to far less that its author thinks. He remarks that Aquinas might have been either a "witting or an unwitting" Neo-Platonist. This is a good deal like saying Karl Marx was a "Kantian." On the one hand, yes. Without the Kantian turn, there would have been no Marx. But the characterization sheds little real light on the latter's work. So too does reading Aquinas singularly fail to put one much in mind of the Neo-Platonist view of the cosmos.

Middle and late Platonists were already readily appropriating Aristotle, either viewing him as an inferior but nonetheless very useful supplement to Plato, or even a faithful Platonist misinterpreted as a dissident. In any case Aristotelian thinking was pretty well entangled with Neoplatonism. If employing Aristotle is evidence of turning toward materialism then Neoplatonism in general- not just Abrahamics- would have to be accused of such a lapse.... which is silly. This entanglement is also embedded in orthodox Christian theology so that it is pretty much impossible to express orthodox Christian views on Christology, the Trinity, etc without resorting to the Platonic-Aristotelian synthetic terms in which these dogmas were elaborated. In other words, you really can't be an orthodox Christian without being some kind of mid-late Platonist, including its incorporate Aristotelianism. You can see this not just in Aquinas but in a heavily Aristotelian eastern father like John Damascene.

In Aquinas' case this is a guy who of course relied heavily on Aristotelian thinking (mediated through Muslim commentators) but also took as a major authority the heavily Proclan Dionysian corpus whose apophatic theology he adopts and which is basically a refusal of conceive of God in Aristotelian terms. Likewise the exemplarism he had in common with other scholastics was a triumph of Platonism over Aristotelian conceptions. He was also familiar enough with Proclus himself- in fact Aquinas was the first Latin reader of "Aristotle's" Liber de Causis (translated from Arabic) to say, "Hey wait a minute, this is Proclus" because he had already read Proclus' Elements of Theology in translation.

Other major sources of Platonism for Latin Christians, including Aquinas, include Macrobius' commentary on the dream of Scipio- pretty much universally adopted as a cosmological guide- and Boethius.

All in all it is clear that the argument that Aquinas was some materialist incapable of admitting immaterial or suprarational realities can only be made by someone who never read him. I've kept my remarks to the Christian tradition because I am most familiar with that one, but, for instance, the framing of Maimonides as an ultra-Aristotelian is likewise very lazy. Of course Aristotelianism is crucial for him but Platonic conceptions are key in his thinking, as borne out by several of the 13 Principles he laid out, on God's transcendence, ineffability, etc. that basically became the creed for Orthodox Jews.

Again the assertion was that the Abrahamic religions came from people only capable of grasping materialistic concepts, hence their adoption of Aristotle and shunning of Plato. This assertion can only issue from extreme laziness.

 

[Xenophon]

Middle and late Platonists were already readily appropriating Aristotle, either viewing him as an inferior but nonetheless very useful supplement to Plato, or even a faithful Platonist misinterpreted as a dissident. In any case Aristotelian thinking was pretty well entangled with Neoplatonism. If employing Aristotle is evidence of turning toward materialism then Neoplatonism in general- not just Abrahamics- would have to be accused of such a lapse.... which is silly. This entanglement is also embedded in orthodox Christian theology so that it is pretty much impossible to express orthodox Christian views on Christology, the Trinity, etc without resorting to the Platonic-Aristotelian synthetic terms in which these dogmas were elaborated. In other words, you really can't be an orthodox Christian without being some kind of mid-late Platonist, including its incorporate Aristotelianism. You can see this not just in Aquinas but in a heavily Aristotelian eastern father like John Damascene.

In Aquinas' case this is a guy who of course relied heavily on Aristotelian thinking (mediated through Muslim commentators) but also took as a major authority the heavily Proclan Dionysian corpus whose apophatic theology he adopts and which is basically a refusal of conceive of God in Aristotelian terms. Likewise the exemplarism he had in common with other scholastics was a triumph of Platonism over Aristotelian conceptions. He was also familiar enough with Proclus himself- in fact Aquinas was the first Latin reader of "Aristotle's" Liber de Causis (translated from Arabic) to say, "Hey wait a minute, this is Proclus" because he had already read Proclus' Elements of Theology in translation.

Other major sources of Platonism for Latin Christians, including Aquinas, include Macrobius' commentary on the dream of Scipio- pretty much universally adopted as a cosmological guide- and Boethius.

All in all it is clear that the argument that Aquinas was some materialist incapable of admitting immaterial or suprarational realities can only be made by someone who never read him. I've kept my remarks to the Christian tradition because I am most familiar with that one, but, for instance, the framing of Maimonides as an ultra-Aristotelian is likewise very lazy. Of course Aristotelianism is crucial for him but Platonic conceptions are key in his thinking, as borne out by several of the 13 Principles he laid out, on God's transcendence, ineffability, etc. that basically became the creed for Orthodox Jews.

Again the assertion was that the Abrahamic religions came from people only capable of grasping materialistic concepts, hence their adoption of Aristotle and shunning of Plato. This assertion can only issue from extreme laziness.

A very complete case. Yeah, I guess Denys Turner does have a book out on "Aquinas the materialist." (Thomas Aquinas: A Portrait.) So a defense is in order.

 

[neilwilkes]

They did make You.

No, they didn't.

Hunter Gatherers were sometimes like Homeless People on the Streets Today when they weren’t Native American Tribes.

Say what?
Sorry, but that last sentence makes no sense to me at all & I was hoping you might elaborate on whatever it is you're trying to say here.

 

[Xenophon]

No, they didn't.

Say what?
Sorry, but that last sentence makes no sense to me at all & I was hoping you might elaborate on whatever it is you're trying to say here.

I think he's making the point that, like some Native American tribes of yore, the more resourceful of today's homeless folksjjukml make use of what bounty lays near at hand. As a civilization we are pretty d***** wasteful. Look at what the average supermarket throws away as "past date." (And frequently now, dumpsters are locked in order to prevent lawsuits.)

 

[neilwilkes]

I think he's making the point that, like some Native American tribes of yore, the more resourceful of today's homeless folksjjukml make use of what bounty lays near at hand. As a civilization we are pretty d***** wasteful. Look at what the average supermarket throws away as "past date." (And frequently now, dumpsters are locked in order to prevent lawsuits.)

Here in the UK, a lot of the supermarkets give away stuff that is going out of date food wise as they have deals with various organizations. Been that way for a while. I would absolutely disagree that the 'today's homeless' are anything like old style hunter gatherers though - not even close. Altruistic ideals are one thing, but that's so far off the mark it's not even funny.

 

[uncannyexplorations]

If there are such things as 'Gods' at all (which I personally have serious doubts about) then I didn't make them & they didn't make me so we're quits on that score. By definition, a 'God' must be both omniscient & omnipotent - otherwise they cannot possibly be anything remotely resembling a 'supreme being', and I see no signs at all of any omniscient creatures in this world at all - and don't get onto the whole 'free will' thing either, as that's a red herring.
What I do see signs of are other intelligences that seem to exist on a different plane to us (and I am not referring to anything modern physicists term the 'Multiverse' as that is utter BS) - we can only 'see' a tiny portion of the spectrum of light and it is highly likely there are creatures all around us that we cannot percieve any more than most of them are able to precieve us but that is no argument to go around 'believing' in them.
Can they be contacted? Almost certainly YES - but therein lies a dilemma that should be obvious to all.

What attitude do I want to see here? Above all else, honesty!
If you genuinely believe in an actual God, then that's perfectly okay with me - just because I don't accept that idea does not make me right (and I will always reserve the right to change any of my opinions if presented with suitable evidence) any more than an absolute belief in any Gods makes the believer right. We could all be wrong - after all, is it not written ' There are more things in Heaven & Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'?

This way of thinking is definitely unique, thanks for sharing.

 

[neilwilkes]

Thank you for that thought - much appreciated, as most people I know think I'm quite mad at times but it makes sense to me.
Didn't Arthur C Clarke famously say that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic once, and can you imagine trying to explain that you're not in fact a sorcerer & soul-stealer to a primitive tribesman from the remotest parts of the Amazon after you film him on your magic tablet?
That said, it's a Sci-Fi trope that some beings masquerade as Gods to less advanced ones, and that was how Cortez managed to get rid of the Aztec & Inca empires, as they thought he was Quetzalcoatl returned as Quetzalcoatl did promise to return before he sailed away across the ocean, and was described as blond haired, bearded & fair skinned.
It does, however, stand to reason (or at least it does to me) that some other dimensional entities which may not be Gods as such but are still extremely powerful beings certainly exist, can be called upon & will - if they choose to - answer when called. There's a very telling passage in Lon Milo DuQuette's foreword to Laycock's 'Complete Enochian Dictionary' where he took Dee's four Elemental Tablets and constructed a set of 3-dimensional versions, apparently with the help of Israel Regardie who was apparently not too happy with the idea and was quoted as saying that to his knowledge nobody had ever done such a thing before and that the Enochian Angels were dangerous enough when they inhabited flat tablets and cautioned 'don't give them dimensional elbow room' (the passage does not say whether or not Dr Regardie actively assisted the endeavour or not) but the point is that beings certainly appear to exist in dimensions outside of our own, and that they can indeed be contacted & communicated with - even if we don't like what they say & do.
Other proofs (at least for me) come in the way that human sight only covers the tiniest part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and there are creatures that exist in oure dimensional space that see the world very differently to us - some see Ultraviolet emissions, other the opposite end of the spectrum in Infra-Red, and others still utilize the planetary Magnetic Field to navigate their way around it when humanity cannot even percieve it's existence without devices such as the compass or complex telescopic devices - the microscopic realm is equally fascinating and very different to ours so I have often wondered if there is also something that exists on such a vast scale we cannot even percieve it is there, never mind begin to understand it's unique consciousness - assuming it has one, but I suspect that consciousness is far from being unique to humans (although I would certainly argue for the existence of what religions have called 'The Soul' for want of a better word)

I just have a problem with the idea that there can possibly be any creature genuinely omniscient & omnipresent.

 

[Xenophon]

Here in the UK, a lot of the supermarkets give away stuff that is going out of date food wise as they have deals with various organizations. Been that way for a while. I would absolutely disagree that the 'today's homeless' are anything like old style hunter gatherers though - not even close. Altruistic ideals are one thing, but that's so far off the mark it's not even funny.

Picking berries off a bush is not a whole lot different in terms of skill level than picking a bag of 'em off a garbage heap. The analogy goes that far, though not much farther. Believe me, I am not one to romanticize urban scavenging.

 

[uncannyexplorations]

Thank you for that thought - much appreciated, as most people I know think I'm quite mad at times but it makes sense to me.
Didn't Arthur C Clarke famously say that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic once, and can you imagine trying to explain that you're not in fact a sorcerer & soul-stealer to a primitive tribesman from the remotest parts of the Amazon after you film him on your magic tablet?
That said, it's a Sci-Fi trope that some beings masquerade as Gods to less advanced ones, and that was how Cortez managed to get rid of the Aztec & Inca empires, as they thought he was Quetzalcoatl returned as Quetzalcoatl did promise to return before he sailed away across the ocean, and was described as blond haired, bearded & fair skinned.
It does, however, stand to reason (or at least it does to me) that some other dimensional entities which may not be Gods as such but are still extremely powerful beings certainly exist, can be called upon & will - if they choose to - answer when called. There's a very telling passage in Lon Milo DuQuette's foreword to Laycock's 'Complete Enochian Dictionary' where he took Dee's four Elemental Tablets and constructed a set of 3-dimensional versions, apparently with the help of Israel Regardie who was apparently not too happy with the idea and was quoted as saying that to his knowledge nobody had ever done such a thing before and that the Enochian Angels were dangerous enough when they inhabited flat tablets and cautioned 'don't give them dimensional elbow room' (the passage does not say whether or not Dr Regardie actively assisted the endeavour or not) but the point is that beings certainly appear to exist in dimensions outside of our own, and that they can indeed be contacted & communicated with - even if we don't like what they say & do.
Other proofs (at least for me) come in the way that human sight only covers the tiniest part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and there are creatures that exist in oure dimensional space that see the world very differently to us - some see Ultraviolet emissions, other the opposite end of the spectrum in Infra-Red, and others still utilize the planetary Magnetic Field to navigate their way around it when humanity cannot even percieve it's existence without devices such as the compass or complex telescopic devices - the microscopic realm is equally fascinating and very different to ours so I have often wondered if there is also something that exists on such a vast scale we cannot even percieve it is there, never mind begin to understand it's unique consciousness - assuming it has one, but I suspect that consciousness is far from being unique to humans (although I would certainly argue for the existence of what religions have called 'The Soul' for want of a better word)

I just have a problem with the idea that there can possibly be any creature genuinely omniscient & omnipresent.

very interesting! out of curiosity, are you more on the LHP or RHP..?