1. It seems as though Plontinus is saying that the The One is ineffable and can only we can only come to know of it through a mysterious process after death once our soul has emerged in some way with God. Plontinus states, "awareness of The One comes to us neither by knowing nor by the pure thought that discovers the other intelligible things, but by a presence transcending knowledge" (538). Therefore, like Plato stated, we can neither speak nor write about The One because its nature is mysterious and knowledge of it can only be obtained once our soul has transcended our body and is connected with "The Intelligence."
2. I really enjoyed the Ibn Tufail reading. The mystical island that was described in the opening passages sounded quite nice and I wished I was there instead of sitting infant of my computer on another cold, rainy day in Connecticut. Besides this, Ibn Tufail also seems to be describing the journey of the soul as ultimately a some what ineffable process. He states, "explaining this state which he had reached is impossible. Any attempt is like someone trying to taste a colour" (582). However, it does seem like this transcendence is obtained through a sort of meditation.
1.)Help I have fallen and I cant escape the illusory world of matter! I find it interesting that this form of neo-platonism allows for matter to exist as a defect of the soul. However this is completely mysterious and the theories claims to correspondence with reality lands short of being a rigorous argument. The story of the ascension to the one contains superficial beautiful but ultimately lacks any satisfactory explanatory power. 2.)As for the loss of self present in the Ibn Tufal reading, It has the same superficial element of beauty as all mystical fictions do, however it is also highly problematic. When I loose myself in this divine unity and transcendental bliss I also loose my ability to think critically as an individual. As was said in the piece itself, in order to achieve this one must sacrifice their own essence to this higher ideal in order to achieve unity with it. From a pragmatic, or phenomenological view point, this just seems like a kind of suicide.
1) I appreciate that Plotinus felt the need to explain in great detail the nature of the soul juxtaposed with the nature of human beings. I am still confused as to what "The One" means. The One seems to be a type of creator, or efficient cause of all things. He states, "The One begets all things" (538). He goes on to describe what sounds like an early iteration of the Christian God, being in all things and in nothing. But, he states that we cannot know this being through reason, which is a Buddhist principle.
2) Ibn Tufail comes not from inquiry as Plotinus, but more of knowledge. He mentions that consciousness is the essence of man. He blends cosmology with that nature of The One. However, since he mentions Allah specifically at the beginning, and The One at the end, are they not the same?
I like the plotinus reading because it fits into what i belive about life. We merely navigate it but nature and our souls are above our comprehention. Only god knows 100% truth and we as mortals will never know it truly until we are dead and in what ever rehlm we end up in. This is how ive understood truth for a long time so it fit into my own personal beliefs, or perhaps i just read it that way because its how I feel.
The second reading by Tufail sort of felt simular to but did mention we could get this transcendent knowledge in our human forms. I'm not sure but it sounds simular to a ranking ssystem of humans and some can achieve this knowledge and others can not.
Youssef Maklad 1. Plotinus reminds me a lot of Emmerson. This may be off topic but both of their brands of mysticism are very closely related, in fact they are close to identical. Why I find that interesting is that they share from a common source, Plato. In fact, im convinced that Emmerson was an avid reader of Plotinus. They both use this platonic idea of the good as this overarching God. They even use the same term “The One”. The reason I find this interesting is because Emerson biggest influence other then Plato is the Hindu Vedas. I can't help but wonder if that was the same for Plotinus because his brand of mysticism is similar to a Hindu mysticism. That said, this is question of anthropology at that point. Could Plotinus have been influenced by the far east? 2. Reading the next piece convinces me more and more that the far east might have had an influence. There ideas of transcendence, annihilation, and reduction a multiplicy to one are all ideas that have strong routes in India. This is interesting because these idea most definitely still have a western feel to them. Its like a mixture of cultures.
The beginning of the reading talks about how to reach the forms one must turn away from their earthly desires. I find this point interesting because it seems to be an idea common in all religions. To reach the point where believers want to reach they have to abandon earthly desires this includes not just frivolous wants but some cases desires such as friendship. Friendship is usually looked at positively, however, to reach the forms it must be abandoned.
Another point discussed concerned how disintegrating matter ceases to be what it is. An example they used was a tree. In the case of a tree if it begins to disintegrate let us say by fire it will no longer be a tree, just burning wood. The same can be said of people. Once we begin to expire we become just a corpse not a person filled with life.
The first portion is certainly a bit abstract but not too difficult to understand except in some parts. The One is the most abstract part of this because its unclear whether this means God or whether it is a concept that relates to everything. It is interesting how he constructs this idea that the soul imparts unity but is not unity itself and that existence requires unity.
1. It seems as though Plontinus is saying that the The One is ineffable and can only we can only come to know of it through a mysterious process after death once our soul has emerged in some way with God. Plontinus states, "awareness of The One comes to us neither by knowing nor by the pure thought that discovers the other intelligible things, but by a presence transcending knowledge" (538). Therefore, like Plato stated, we can neither speak nor write about The One because its nature is mysterious and knowledge of it can only be obtained once our soul has transcended our body and is connected with "The Intelligence."
ReplyDelete2. I really enjoyed the Ibn Tufail reading. The mystical island that was described in the opening passages sounded quite nice and I wished I was there instead of sitting infant of my computer on another cold, rainy day in Connecticut. Besides this, Ibn Tufail also seems to be describing the journey of the soul as ultimately a some what ineffable process. He states, "explaining this state which he had reached is impossible. Any attempt is like someone trying to taste a colour" (582). However, it does seem like this transcendence is obtained through a sort of meditation.
1.)Help I have fallen and I cant escape the illusory world of matter! I find it interesting that this form of neo-platonism allows for matter to exist as a defect of the soul. However this is completely mysterious and the theories claims to correspondence with reality lands short of being a rigorous argument. The story of the ascension to the one contains superficial beautiful but ultimately lacks any satisfactory explanatory power.
ReplyDelete2.)As for the loss of self present in the Ibn Tufal reading, It has the same superficial element of beauty as all mystical fictions do, however it is also highly problematic. When I loose myself in this divine unity and transcendental bliss I also loose my ability to think critically as an individual. As was said in the piece itself, in order to achieve this one must sacrifice their own essence to this higher ideal in order to achieve unity with it. From a pragmatic, or phenomenological view point, this just seems like a kind of suicide.
1) I appreciate that Plotinus felt the need to explain in great detail the nature of the soul juxtaposed with the nature of human beings. I am still confused as to what "The One" means. The One seems to be a type of creator, or efficient cause of all things. He states, "The One begets all things" (538). He goes on to describe what sounds like an early iteration of the Christian God, being in all things and in nothing. But, he states that we cannot know this being through reason, which is a Buddhist principle.
ReplyDelete2) Ibn Tufail comes not from inquiry as Plotinus, but more of knowledge. He mentions that consciousness is the essence of man. He blends cosmology with that nature of The One. However, since he mentions Allah specifically at the beginning, and The One at the end, are they not the same?
I like the plotinus reading because it fits into what i belive about life. We merely navigate it but nature and our souls are above our comprehention. Only god knows 100% truth and we as mortals will never know it truly until we are dead and in what ever rehlm we end up in. This is how ive understood truth for a long time so it fit into my own personal beliefs, or perhaps i just read it that way because its how I feel.
ReplyDeleteThe second reading by Tufail sort of felt simular to but did mention we could get this transcendent knowledge in our human forms. I'm not sure but it sounds simular to a ranking ssystem of humans and some can achieve this knowledge and others can not.
Youssef Maklad
ReplyDelete1. Plotinus reminds me a lot of Emmerson. This may be off topic but both of their brands of mysticism are very closely related, in fact they are close to identical. Why I find that interesting is that they share from a common source, Plato. In fact, im convinced that Emmerson was an avid reader of Plotinus. They both use this platonic idea of the good as this overarching God. They even use the same term “The One”. The reason I find this interesting is because Emerson biggest influence other then Plato is the Hindu Vedas. I can't help but wonder if that was the same for Plotinus because his brand of mysticism is similar to a Hindu mysticism. That said, this is question of anthropology at that point. Could Plotinus have been influenced by the far east?
2. Reading the next piece convinces me more and more that the far east might have had an influence. There ideas of transcendence, annihilation, and reduction a multiplicy to one are all ideas that have strong routes in India. This is interesting because these idea most definitely still have a western feel to them. Its like a mixture of cultures.
The beginning of the reading talks about how to reach the forms one must turn away from their earthly desires. I find this point interesting because it seems to be an idea common in all religions. To reach the point where believers want to reach they have to abandon earthly desires this includes not just frivolous wants but some cases desires such as friendship. Friendship is usually looked at positively, however, to reach the forms it must be abandoned.
ReplyDeleteAnother point discussed concerned how disintegrating matter ceases to be what it is. An example they used was a tree. In the case of a tree if it begins to disintegrate let us say by fire it will no longer be a tree, just burning wood. The same can be said of people. Once we begin to expire we become just a corpse not a person filled with life.
The first portion is certainly a bit abstract but not too difficult to understand except in some parts. The One is the most abstract part of this because its unclear whether this means God or whether it is a concept that relates to everything. It is interesting how he constructs this idea that the soul imparts unity but is not unity itself and that existence requires unity.
ReplyDelete