Difference between Plotinus and Gnosticism is that he doesn’t think the material world is evil; it’s just deficient. Gnostics say that it’s literally evil in its essence. But the reason they get lumped in together from my understanding is that they both say we need to escape the material world. Plotinus famously was ashamed of his body
Bruce! Your content is great but I just wish it was easier to track through your channel. Your uploads seem to be all over the place. It would be great to get these divided up into comprehensive playlists
If you go to Bruce Gore dot com website then click on Topics, you can select the category. You can then choose to play the audio or the video which is UA-cam.
Great lecture about an all to forgotten person from the history of ideas. I do disagree about you calling Plotinus a gnostic, but that ultimately comes down to semantics. The same is true of the question of mysticism. I would define a mystic as someone who seek direct personal experience/knowledge/validation of the mysteries, as opposed to someone who just wants to read about them. The key is the personal and direct. Either way, Plotinus was certainly a mystic.
how can you possibly call Plotinus one of the most famous Gnostics when he argued vehemently against them. There's a chapter in The Enneads entitled "Against the Gnostics"
Thanks for the feedback! There were many strands of Gnosticism. Plotinus operated in a broadly Platonic frame of reference, which is why his philosophy was called Neo-Platonism by later analysts. His mystical approach to truth certainly shared deeply in that Platonic perspective, and also tied him to the prevailing Gnostic outlook of his day. His attack on Gnosticism was therefore somewhat inter-mural.
IDK, it still seems misleading to call Plotinus a Gnostic just because Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism share some elements of Platonism. By that logic you can say that Muhammad was one of the most famous Christians because Islam and Christianity share elements of Judaism...
I think this fellow is coming from a thorough-going Christian perspective, based on his other videos, and thus is predisposed to using the term "Gnostic" as a catch-all pejorative for competing non-Christian philosophies in the classical period of a more esoteric, mystical nature. It's code - because even people who don't know anything about Greek philosophy know that Gnosticism was a famous early "heresy." Good grief, Plotinus was a monist.
Another very informative session about classical era philosophies however it seems the high school students are not mature enough to sit still and appreciate the subject matter
Hey Mr. Gore I always enjoy your lectures and Holy Spirit used you very brilliantly. What books of Plotinus would you suggest for me to start reading first? And what book do you also suggest for me to read about Gnosticism so that I can have a better understanding between Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism?.
For a brief introduction to Neoplatonism, the philosophical school associated with Plotinus, I would read his pupil, Porphyry’s Letter to His Wife Marcella. It is 59 pages long including intro, and usually inexpensive online. If one’s more committed, I would encourage one to dive into Plotinus’ (only writings,) The Enneads. Incidentally, the aforementioned Porphyry is credited with arranging Plotinus’ Enneads, taking them from esoteric essays to a comprehensive philosophical monument. There are six books, and they can be found for free as audiobooks. There are many, divergent sources of Gnostic thought. Plato’s Timaeus might be a good place to start, since it seems foundational to the whole system. Some question the premises of much textual authentication regarding historical Gnosticism. To them, Plotinus “Against the Gnostics” might be a good place to start.
Monism vs Dualism...Plotinus was not a Gnostic, but in the sense that he believed in the all pervading and transcendent "One" as through the teachings of Plato. True Gnostics were dualists and used the "language" of Christian myth, plus their own cosmology. Whereas, Plotinus was a Monist, they both shared an appreciation of the ineffable.....the transcendent world that we, in their minds, at least, truly long for and will be reunited with. To Plotinus, this was achievable in the here and now......but through philosophical contemplation. Oh, I'm just adding my perspective, not trying to antagonize or pretend I know all.....thanks for this lecture!
Did this old dude call Plotinus a Gnostic?!?! What blasphemy, Plotinus is not a Gnostic and never was. He literally has a treatise called “Against the Gnostics”. 👎🏼
+T K I've not read Nash's 'The Logos Theory.' I did, however, hear him lecture on Neo-Platonism some years back, and borrowed some of his analogies which I found quite helpful.
My counsel is very pedestrian. Learn as much as you can from the best professors you can find, and seize every reasonable opportunity that comes along to hone your skills as a presenter.
I don't agree with the student's definition of idealism. It seems based on a misapprehension that it's got something to do with having high ideals, when actually, it refers to ideas and means that reality is primarily mental.
It seems to me that Monism of the second century in Europe is similar to, and predated by, Hindu verse, and that Greek exposure to the far east of the Alexandrian world (India) must have influenced the philosophy of this time and place. Chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita is probably about as succinct and comprehensive summary of Monism as we have anywhere.
It is a possibility, since the Roman world was in contact with India and China. However other options are also available, including the influence of the mystical experience itself. But Plotinus certainly drew on Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, and possibly certain ideas from the Jews and from Egypt.
The Baktrian Empire (Greek/Macedonian colonists) ruled what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan and much of Northern India for centuries. You had Greek philosopher kings who converted to Buddhism and introduced life like statuary to all of Asia (that’s right no infamous sitting Buddha idols until the Greeks made them it’s arguable that Greek workers aided with something like the Terra-cotta army as well) and the Sakas who took that empire after it more hybridized with Indic culture continued much of this Hellenistic tendency. No doubt through this kingdom and then through the Seleucid empire that this info made it West.
Eastern Orthodox denounced neoplatonism, but they definitely believe in theosis where you retain who you are but are deified, which of course is the teaching of all theearly Church fathers that reformed people like yourself follow.
His series on the Historical Context of the Bible and on the History of God's People are a lot better. Possibly because he's talking to a more mature audience in those, they're richer in detail and less perfunctory. I'm finding this series a little disappointing by comparison, like he doesn't really want to be teaching it (those other series, athough pitched from a Presbyterian Christian perspective, are a lot less dogmatic and dismissive of contrary ideas).
Christianity has had an embarrassing dilemma of its theology based on bastardized Judaism. Christianity is now trying to interpret its theology by making all Greek philosophers proto-Christians.
You missed all the times he explained that the Greeks had vaguely similar but different beliefs to Christians. Watch the previous videos in the playlist.
Makes sense. The Greek's worldview was more grounded in reason than those of their contemporaries, the inevitable intellectual justification of Christian belief was bound to rely on Greek inheritance. It is ironic though. Today's Christian theologians and their metaphysical dialectic defends an institution whose founding dogmas cannot have possibly come into existence without the dialectical suppression of Paul's 1st century congregations. Much the way that the modern US housing market relies on early acts of theft, modern Christian theology dominates the landscape of philosophical contemplation because of its early theft of its adherents right to that very same contemplation.
John 1:1-4 uses the term Logos and Christ clearly uses platonist metaphors. Man is made in God’s image… etc. Christianity has something to say and dialogue with the Greek schools of thought, it is not a foreign element.
5:50 Plotinus is a gnostic? Did I misunderstand his section of the Enneads, literally titled “Against the Gnostics”?
Plotinus isn't a gnostic. You are correct
christians always seem to misinterpret neoplatonism.
Difference between Plotinus and Gnosticism is that he doesn’t think the material world is evil; it’s just deficient. Gnostics say that it’s literally evil in its essence. But the reason they get lumped in together from my understanding is that they both say we need to escape the material world. Plotinus famously was ashamed of his body
How have I not subscribed to this channel I've been listening to it for years. These talks are so underrated
Bruce! Your content is great but I just wish it was easier to track through your channel. Your uploads seem to be all over the place. It would be great to get these divided up into comprehensive playlists
There’s tons of playlists on his main channel
If you go to Bruce Gore dot com website then click on Topics, you can select the category. You can then choose to play the audio or the video which is UA-cam.
Thank you Mr. Gore for this Lecture, greetings from Sweden!
Thank very much for the lecture on Neots Platonic sir.
Great lecture about an all to forgotten person from the history of ideas.
I do disagree about you calling Plotinus a gnostic, but that ultimately comes down to semantics. The same is true of the question of mysticism. I would define a mystic as someone who seek direct personal experience/knowledge/validation of the mysteries, as opposed to someone who just wants to read about them. The key is the personal and direct. Either way, Plotinus was certainly a mystic.
how can you possibly call Plotinus one of the most famous Gnostics when he argued vehemently against them. There's a chapter in The Enneads entitled "Against the Gnostics"
Thanks for the feedback! There were many strands of Gnosticism. Plotinus operated in a broadly Platonic frame of reference, which is why his philosophy was called Neo-Platonism by later analysts. His mystical approach to truth certainly shared deeply in that Platonic perspective, and also tied him to the prevailing Gnostic outlook of his day. His attack on Gnosticism was therefore somewhat inter-mural.
I tend very much to YOUR side of the discussion...seems a gross misrep to involve plot's admittedly mystical "beliefs" with gnosticism
IDK, it still seems misleading to call Plotinus a Gnostic just because Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism share some elements of Platonism. By that logic you can say that Muhammad was one of the most famous Christians because Islam and Christianity share elements of Judaism...
Bobby Pinto εύγε \m/
I think this fellow is coming from a thorough-going Christian perspective, based on his other videos, and thus is predisposed to using the term "Gnostic" as a catch-all pejorative for competing non-Christian philosophies in the classical period of a more esoteric, mystical nature. It's code - because even people who don't know anything about Greek philosophy know that Gnosticism was a famous early "heresy." Good grief, Plotinus was a monist.
25:30 sounds to me like Plotinus was the original Kant
Ty very much for the lesson
Another very informative session about classical era philosophies however it seems the high school students are not mature enough to sit still and appreciate the subject matter
Oh...they do ok. We all like to have a little fun in class.
They’re teenagers what can you expect
@@brucegore4373 ua-cam.com/video/LU3ghshXPg8/v-deo.html
The thumbnail says the lecture's an hour 20 minutes, but the run tine is actually 48 mins. What's goin on?
What is the man drinking in this video while teaching?
Hey Mr. Gore I always enjoy your lectures and Holy Spirit used you very brilliantly. What books of Plotinus would you suggest for me to start reading first? And what book do you also suggest for me to read about Gnosticism so that I can have a better understanding between Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism?.
For a brief introduction to Neoplatonism, the philosophical school associated with Plotinus, I would read his pupil, Porphyry’s Letter to His Wife Marcella. It is 59 pages long including intro, and usually inexpensive online. If one’s more committed, I would encourage one to dive into Plotinus’ (only writings,) The Enneads. Incidentally, the aforementioned Porphyry is credited with arranging Plotinus’ Enneads, taking them from esoteric essays to a comprehensive philosophical monument. There are six books, and they can be found for free as audiobooks.
There are many, divergent sources of Gnostic thought. Plato’s Timaeus might be a good place to start, since it seems foundational to the whole system. Some question the premises of much textual authentication regarding historical Gnosticism. To them, Plotinus “Against the Gnostics” might be a good place to start.
omg this was the best of the best 🤩
Monism vs Dualism...Plotinus was not a Gnostic, but in the sense that he believed in the all pervading and transcendent "One" as through the teachings of Plato. True Gnostics were dualists and used the "language" of Christian myth, plus their own cosmology. Whereas, Plotinus was a Monist, they both shared an appreciation of the ineffable.....the transcendent world that we, in their minds, at least, truly long for and will be reunited with. To Plotinus, this was achievable in the here and now......but through philosophical contemplation. Oh, I'm just adding my perspective, not trying to antagonize or pretend I know all.....thanks for this lecture!
Did this old dude call Plotinus a Gnostic?!?! What blasphemy, Plotinus is not a Gnostic and never was. He literally has a treatise called “Against the Gnostics”. 👎🏼
Are you familiar with Ron Nash's little book The Logos Theory? You echoed his thought therein a number of times in this video.
+T K I've not read Nash's 'The Logos Theory.' I did, however, hear him lecture on Neo-Platonism some years back, and borrowed some of his analogies which I found quite helpful.
Bruce, what would you suggest for someone interested in teaching philosophy/history?
My counsel is very pedestrian. Learn as much as you can from the best professors you can find, and seize every reasonable opportunity that comes along to hone your skills as a presenter.
Forgot my pencil can i borrow one
I don't agree with the student's definition of idealism. It seems based on a misapprehension that it's got something to do with having high ideals, when actually, it refers to ideas and means that reality is primarily mental.
It seems to me that Monism of the second century in Europe is similar to, and predated by, Hindu verse, and that Greek exposure to the far east of the Alexandrian world (India) must have influenced the philosophy of this time and place.
Chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita is probably about as succinct and comprehensive summary of Monism as we have anywhere.
It is a possibility, since the Roman world was in contact with India and China. However other options are also available, including the influence of the mystical experience itself. But Plotinus certainly drew on Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics, and possibly certain ideas from the Jews and from Egypt.
And not to forget the Pythagoreans.
It's possible Plotinus encountered the Samkhya school too during his various travels.
The Baktrian Empire (Greek/Macedonian colonists) ruled what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan and much of Northern India for centuries. You had Greek philosopher kings who converted to Buddhism and introduced life like statuary to all of Asia (that’s right no infamous sitting Buddha idols until the Greeks made them it’s arguable that Greek workers aided with something like the Terra-cotta army as well) and the Sakas who took that empire after it more hybridized with Indic culture continued much of this Hellenistic tendency. No doubt through this kingdom and then through the Seleucid empire that this info made it West.
Ever heard Proclus?
Eastern Orthodox denounced neoplatonism, but they definitely believe in theosis where you retain who you are but are deified, which of course is the teaching of all theearly Church fathers that reformed people like yourself follow.
Hell ya
Truth is with Plato, not with Aristotle unfortunately
I think they all have good and bad points but if you side with Plato I think Plotinus world view is stronger than Plato’s
@@DANtheMANofSIPA I agree. Plotinus's works are detailed expansion of the divine experiences Plato had.
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Peripatetics/Immanentists failed to ground the intellect on to Ontology/Being.
Don't know what to think about this lecturer
His series on the Historical Context of the Bible and on the History of God's People are a lot better. Possibly because he's talking to a more mature audience in those, they're richer in detail and less perfunctory. I'm finding this series a little disappointing by comparison, like he doesn't really want to be teaching it (those other series, athough pitched from a Presbyterian Christian perspective, are a lot less dogmatic and dismissive of contrary ideas).
لاء ماهو دا اخر الجهاز بوضعة الحالي
هايتعرف راسة من رجلة وهيتفك ويتركب من الاول
واللي مش عاجبة هيعتبر ارهابي. انتوا عطلة للكل بالكدب
You could've fit Gnosticism in here easily. Plotinus was critical of the gnostics and probably would've been perfect for your narrative.
He’s wrong. the highest catholic saints talked of becoming God, one with God.
Christianity has had an embarrassing dilemma of its theology based on bastardized Judaism. Christianity is now trying to interpret its theology by making all Greek philosophers proto-Christians.
You missed all the times he explained that the Greeks had vaguely similar but different beliefs to Christians. Watch the previous videos in the playlist.
Now? That's an original feature. It's been there since the beginning.
Makes sense. The Greek's worldview was more grounded in reason than those of their contemporaries, the inevitable intellectual justification of Christian belief was bound to rely on Greek inheritance. It is ironic though. Today's Christian theologians and their metaphysical dialectic defends an institution whose founding dogmas cannot have possibly come into existence without the dialectical suppression of Paul's 1st century congregations. Much the way that the modern US housing market relies on early acts of theft, modern Christian theology dominates the landscape of philosophical contemplation because of its early theft of its adherents right to that very same contemplation.
True
John 1:1-4 uses the term Logos and Christ clearly uses platonist metaphors. Man is made in God’s image… etc. Christianity has something to say and dialogue with the Greek schools of thought, it is not a foreign element.
Punk kids