tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post112761175236354992..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: Obscurum Per Obscurius?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1132795578182461352005-11-23T20:26:00.000-05:002005-11-23T20:26:00.000-05:00The Nous is both one, in that it is all intelligib...The Nous is both one, in that it is all intelligible, and many, in that that intelligibility is of distinct Platonic forms. If it was simply one, nous couldn't think because thinking is distinguishing. Plotinus is attempting to talk about intelligible reality or "the realm of the really real." (Sorry if you already got that far.) Because the Nous is the Platonic Intelligibles (demiurge?), because thinking is its thoughts or it is nothing at all, it is one-and-many, all intelligible but with intelligible distinctions. <BR/><BR/>How does one get a hold of a copy of that paper? I think Perl is right in his diagnosis and sounds like he is on the right track regarding the solution. Modernity-post-modernity is opaque, which is why it sucks. While initially opaque, Plotinian Neoplatonism is fundamentally about the ultimate transparency of reality to contemplation. Plotinus leaves only one "primitive": the antinomic mystery of the One's self-diffusion qua the many intelligibles and their many images.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1127936905032925922005-09-28T15:48:00.000-04:002005-09-28T15:48:00.000-04:00I'm willing to say that Plotinus' philosophy is 'd...I'm willing to say that Plotinus' philosophy is 'deep nonsense' (in Dreben's notorious phrase) whereas the representational theory of perception, as found in British empiricism, is simply nonsense. But then it's not felicitous, quite--or perhaps it is even insincere--to hold that what distinguishes phenomenological neo-Platonism, and gives it an edge, is that it avoids 'incoherence'. The word is too blunt for the dispute.Michael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1127742407862268372005-09-26T09:46:00.000-04:002005-09-26T09:46:00.000-04:00There's a difference between intrinsically incoher...There's a difference between intrinsically incoherent and inherently paradoxical. Plotinus is paradoxical--nous is and cannot be one--but that is not the same as incoherent, ie I have no idea what he's saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com