25) Plotinus & Neo-Platonism

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 44

  • @TheMusicalStylingsofBrentBunn
    @TheMusicalStylingsofBrentBunn 3 роки тому +14

    I had a wonderful time with this series. Thank you for giving this out for free ✌

  • @JeremyCrowson
    @JeremyCrowson 4 місяці тому

    Behold, a single ray of Light emanating from the One through the window, blessing the lecture.

  • @ispeakyouspeak
    @ispeakyouspeak 2 роки тому +2

    I wish I would have such a clear and excellent professor like you. Such an amazing introduction to the concept, situating it historically, succintly explaining what is Plotinus all about and then profoundly going to the different perceptions he had on the One. Fantastic

  • @dianeodify
    @dianeodify 6 років тому +13

    Thank you. I've read Plotinus but couldn't see why the Renaissance guys became so excited about him - until now. You make it new - and even exciting. If this is "not bad" then I really look forward to the rest.

  • @geezy218
    @geezy218 6 років тому +9

    Very good lecture. The idea of the one began to make sense when I heard about the concept of the aether and potentiality. Everything comes from the aether, everything is in it ( unity ). It is the very definition of potential. It is not yet something but it has the potential to become so because it is everything. Scientists of the 1800s thought the aether was neccesary. Funny how science at that time came to the same conclusion as metaphysics.
    You also made very good points about 2 things
    1. The physical world is like a shadow/privation. You have the source ( the good ) and a lack of that source. A shadow is simply a privation of light, cold is a privation of heat. evil is a privation of the good, black is a privation of colours, etc... It could be said that matter is a lack of the forms. Some sort of imperfect image.
    2. you said something about " I saw it.. not with my eyes but in my mind ". This implies a different kind of seeing but not with your eyes. It raises the question of who or what is seeing and how.
    I know it is not a subject people like to talk about but many people experienced unity while being on psychedelics. Some claim to have experienced " death ", getting rid of the ego.

    • @forevertemporary1760
      @forevertemporary1760 6 років тому +2

      The aether is making a comeback in sciences

    • @dissatisfiedphilosophy
      @dissatisfiedphilosophy 2 роки тому

      you mean the khora right? The connection of khora and One was done by Deleuze i believe

  • @flora4045
    @flora4045 3 роки тому +2

    This was so helpful for my philosophy of Metaphysics class. Thank you Adam, your teaching is brilliant!!

  • @seanp.kilroy6833
    @seanp.kilroy6833 5 років тому +3

    I feel fortunate to be auditing professor Rosenfeld’s class

  • @UncleBuckDallas
    @UncleBuckDallas 3 роки тому

    Really appreciate you posting this lecture. I am sadly unable to find much good material online about Plotinus’ thought, and my philosophy courses begin and end with the enlightenment period. It does not hurt that you are a professor in North Carolina, as I am an NC native as well! Godspeed.

  • @hannaha4046
    @hannaha4046 4 роки тому +2

    loved this, really good watch

  • @PhilosopherMuse
    @PhilosopherMuse 7 років тому +6

    Not bad Adam! I've posted a number of commentaries on my channel that may compliment your lecture.
    Passages below to help affirm your thought at 1:03:30
    "The Good is the cause of being and of intelligence, it is a light in respect of the beings that are seen and the Intelligence that sees them... it produces thought by shedding its light on the beings and on Intelligence." VI.7.16.
    "In short, thought, being the thought of good, is beneath Him, and consequently does not belong to Him. I say: "does not belong to Him," not denying that the Good can be thought (for this, I admit); but because thought could not exist in the Good; otherwise, the Good and that which is beneath it-namely, the thought of Good-would fuse." - VI.7.40.

    • @adamrosenfeld9384
      @adamrosenfeld9384  7 років тому +3

      Thanks for the encouragement! This is the first time I've taught Plotinus, and I'll admit that I found it a challenge.

    • @Dirtxbc
      @Dirtxbc 2 роки тому

      @@adamrosenfeld9384 very complex lecture thank you so much man.

  • @crimsonking2177
    @crimsonking2177 4 роки тому +11

    Plotinus was a genius. I never understood mysticism and the talk of God until I encountered psychedelic substances. While it is possible to have a mystical experience by diligently practising meditation, yoga and other breathing techniques, the quickest way is definitely to use a compound like LSD or psilocybin. Once you have had the experience, you will understand why it cannot be talked about, and any attempt to do so tends to sound like vague, metaphysical hippie mumbo jumbo. But there is a good reason for this. During the experience one transcends the subject-object divide (for which it becomes quite clear that it doesn't actually exist but is merely a human concept), meaning there is no difference between anything anymore (most importantly "self" and "other") and EVERYTHING, the whole of reality ("The One", "The Absolute", "The Infinite", "God"...) is DIRECTLY experienced all at the same time. It is a spontaneous recognition, an "Aha-Moment", where all of a sudden the nature of reality becomes perfectly obvious in a very visceral way. I have yet to meet a person who did not immediately recognize that they were encountering The One (fittingly, most people react to the experience by saying things like "Oh my God!" or "Holy Shit!"). It is an experience of infinite love, bliss and beauty and nothing like anything one can experience in ordinary consciousness. Since all language assumes a difference between subject and object, there is no way of explaining the mystical experience with words. Words are by definition restricted to mean a certain thing and not another thing. There can be no definition for The Absolute, because it is the only thing that exists and therefore cannot be defined in relationship to something else. Every definition is itself a part of the whole, but never the whole. That's why in negative theology or the Eastern neti neti method, one tries to convey what The Absolute is not by making statements about what it IS (because all of these statements must necessarily be false), but rather what it is NOT. Whatever definition you give for the Absolute, whatever you imagine it to be is not IT. The One is unlimited and can only be experienced directly and cannot be grasped by the very limited rational human mind. Most people have never had such an experience and would probably deny that something like that even exists, or at least reject it as subjective, unscientific and hallucinatory. This is not the case. Anybody can verify it for themselves by the aforementioned methods if they are curious enough. I can recommend a buckload of literature if anyone is interested in diving deeper into the fascinating topics of mysticism and nonduality.

    • @androu4
      @androu4 3 роки тому

      I would love some recommendations on this literature!

    • @TheGuiltsOfUs
      @TheGuiltsOfUs 3 роки тому

      KRISHNA IS REAL

    • @VVeltanschauung187
      @VVeltanschauung187 3 роки тому

      Agreed. The highlights of his philosophy is that he reconciles Plato with Aristotle.

    • @QED_
      @QED_ 3 роки тому

      @@androu4 Rupert Spira is one well known exponent of nonduality: ua-cam.com/video/mQ9omxg4IIA/v-deo.html

    • @blacksabbath6227
      @blacksabbath6227 2 роки тому

      This is just delusion

  • @SK-le1gm
    @SK-le1gm 2 роки тому +4

    TAO ☯️ is The One.
    YANG ⚫️ is Intellect.
    - that which can be articulated.
    YIN ⚪️ is Soul.
    - that which can’t be articulated.

    • @Dirtxbc
      @Dirtxbc 2 роки тому +2

      Sounds like just a simple explanation for a complex thing.

    • @29rbs
      @29rbs 3 місяці тому +2

      I dont think Psyche is what is inarticulable. It emanates from Nous which is like the essence of articulation. It exists to bridge to the material world.
      Neoplatonism definitely has huge overlap with Taoism (Tao Te Ching chapter 42 is like literally just the hypostases) but this seems like trying to shoehorn concepts. The hierarchy of Nous and Psyche is central to the metaphysics, and Yin and Yang are metaphysically the same level of fundamental.

  • @tatsumakisempyukaku
    @tatsumakisempyukaku 5 років тому +7

    Haha. You’re like the new Dr Arthur Holmes from Wheaton college.
    Do you have a lecture on Edmund husserl?

  • @seanlittle20
    @seanlittle20 7 місяців тому +1

    I can’t believe these positive reviews. He is enthusiastic and knowledgeable but scattered and unfocused, as he jumped from topic to topic without clarifying. Free association is not the same as teaching. I think you drank too much coffee. If you want to learn Plotinus, check out Pierre Grimes.

    • @29rbs
      @29rbs 3 місяці тому +1

      A free lecture is a free lecture! If you need more structure, thats what books are for. This is a great intro

  • @canisronis2753
    @canisronis2753 8 місяців тому

    most excellent!

  • @glof2553
    @glof2553 3 роки тому +2

    Great lecturer

  • @chesstempi1570
    @chesstempi1570 4 роки тому +1

    Thanks for this lecture!

  • @odiyadenis3967
    @odiyadenis3967 11 місяців тому

    Thank you very much sir. I have loved and learnt a lot from your lectures. Do you also have classes for medieval philosophers?

  • @careforbunniesnot6075
    @careforbunniesnot6075 6 років тому +3

    Definitely a bit too scattered but still a very good lecture. It would be amazing to listen to after you have done it a dozen more times. : ] Very open minded.
    Noteworthy, its 6 books of 9 treatises each = 54.

  • @inqubusta
    @inqubusta 5 років тому

    Great Lecture!

  • @quayscenes
    @quayscenes 5 років тому +2

    So diamonds are not forever???

  • @Barklord
    @Barklord 8 місяців тому

    6 parts, 9 treatises in each.

  • @MrMarktrumble
    @MrMarktrumble 5 років тому

    Thank you

  • @athenassigil5820
    @athenassigil5820 5 років тому +1

    Sulla was not an emperor( he was the first consul),nor were there any emperors until Augustus. Very excellent video, otherwise.

  • @MrTeenStyle
    @MrTeenStyle 5 років тому +2

    passwords: knowledge, wisdom, love

  • @RekzaFS
    @RekzaFS 4 роки тому +1

    Getting dizzy from all this camera movement. Next time place the camera further back in the room.

  • @TheGuiltsOfUs
    @TheGuiltsOfUs 3 роки тому

    Krishna is the One

  • @iceblinkmender
    @iceblinkmender 2 роки тому +1

    The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.