just finished this

metaphysics does not "create an entire branch of thought" (metaphysical thought is generally considered to begin alongside behavioral modernity) and the enneads is actually the most important group of metaphysical writings based in aristotelian logic (as well as the first significant textual milestone in the 'third component' of western culture)

Metaphysics, the book, created the science of Metaphysics. Anything you see referencing any sort of argument relating to Metaphysics is referencing Aristotle, like the Enneads or any other Aristotelian fan-fiction.

Go educate yourself before posting. :3

>Metaphysics, the book, created the science of Metaphysics
no, it didn't. please do some reading on the subject.
>Anything you see referencing any sort of argument relating to Metaphysics is referencing Aristotle, like the Enneads or any other Aristotelian fan-fiction.
obvious you haven't read it - it's based in categories (not metaphysics) and on the handful of occasions plotinus cites metaphysics it is only to refute it.

to summarize, aristotle's metaphysics: made some minor contributions to abstract foundations of church doctrine that had no relation to the vast majority of people's lives and then relegated to some rather unimportant citations in a handful of philosophical texts over one thousand years later
the enneads: textual pillar of what is generally academically recognized as the third component of western culture

>Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσιkά; Latin: Metaphysica[1]) is one of the principal works of Aristotle and the first major work of the branch of philosophy with the same name. The principal subject is "being qua being," or being insofar as it is being. It examines what can be asserted about any being insofar as it is and not because of any special qualities it has. Also covered are different kinds of causation, form and matter, the existence of mathematical objects, and a prime-mover God.

Here you go pleb. :3

"first major work of the branch of philosophy with the same name" =/= "creates an entire branch of thought" or "is an essential piece of literature for someone existing in the year 2019"

sorry

in fact it looks like you might benefit from reading sophistical refutations! haha!!

Look, if you didn’t understand Metaphysics that’s okay. I don’t expect someone who can’t capitalize words to grasp it.

But don’t disparage those of us who do. Go back to reading Plato un-metaphorically like a high schooler. Leave the high-level literary analysis for us. :3

great counterargument. the enneads (which i have now told you to read six times) is largely about uncovering the non literal meanings in plato By The Way!

I’m sure you know all about that. What is your interpretation of the Republic?

:3

as with most of plato's dialogues concerning metaphysics it is encouraging the reader to consider the transcendent foundations that underlie sensible existence with the aim of guiding them towards gnosis. phaedrus is the clearest one in my opinion.

Enough. I have heard nothing intelligent from you thus far.

No one actually intelligent uses terms such as ‘gnosis’ or something of this nature when describing the Republic.

What would you think of Plato’s cave analogy? What do you think of the Good as described by Plato (also mentioned by Aristotle in Prior Analytics briefly)

:3

Your post is too ambiguous for me to determine if it is innocuous (at its core, there is nothing wrong with it) but at all too often, this very summary analysis is a common middle ground fallacy overview of Aristotle as taught by undergrad ethics courses by midwit professors. Aristotle upheld virtue as excellence and he showed what actions contributed to it and how if these actions were alone examined, they could be shown to undermine them in either direction. The principle contribution of Aristotle was establishing virtue by reason, which is why he goes on at length to describe the consequence of a deficiency, an excess, whereupon the right course of action rests in the "middle state" in between. Without delineating this, his advice virtue's be strictly prescriptive. Worse, without this dichotomy, one would mistake the actions themselves as the aim, rather than a contributing cause, and be clueless as to the reason for it. The cause of virtue can be said as you described but it can never be of itself as you described. When it is as such, virtue itself is repudiated. Nonvirtue is justified through extrapolations of Aristotelian reasoning by means of this mean, whereupon unvirtuous conduct is 'okay' in the schema of this so-called moderation; the end result is a total bastardization of his ethics.

Attached: The Philosopher.png (196x253, 128K)

>No one actually intelligent uses terms such as ‘gnosis’ or something of this nature when describing the Republic.
why not? do you know what the word refers to? have you read phaedrus? its clear you HAVENT read timaeus or you would be aware of just how stupid you sound right now.

>What would you think of Plato’s cave analogy?
the shadows on the wall represent the sensible, material world and the real world represents what plotinus would refer to as 'the intelligible world'. the act of rejecting one for the other is gnosis.

>What do you think of the Good as described by Plato (also mentioned by Aristotle in Prior Analytics briefly)
'the good' is a unified creative principle that it is possible for individuals to identify with through the process of gnosis

i mean timaeus literally opens with this elaboration on the cave allegory:

>we must being by making the following distinction: What is /that which always is/ and has no becoming, and what is /that which becomes/ but never is? The former is grasped by understanding, which involves a reasoned account. It is unchanging. The latter is grasped by opinion, which involves unreasoning sense perception. It comes to be and passes away, but never really is.

failure to detect the intimations towards gnosis in this passage only shows that YOU are incapable of reading subtext in Plato

>we must being
we must begin*

Timaeus is one of my favorites. Nowhere in the book is gnosis mentioned. I think someone who read Plotinus would use the term, not a serious scholar.

>the shadows on the wall represent the sensible, material world and the real world represents what plotinus would refer to as 'the intelligible world'. the act of rejecting one for the other is gnosis.
This is another reason you shouldn’t just listen to Yea Forums for answers regarding interpretations of Platonic metaphors. This interpretation, espoused day in and day out constantly by everyone in Yea Forums and even maybe academia, is wrong. Just plain wrong.

>'the good' is a unified creative principle that it is possible for individuals to identify with through the process of gnosis

Again incorrect, the good is also mentioned in Metaphysics. It is a characteristic and one of the first principles of human life and created energy. It is a principle of existence. Proclus (someone you should read as well) mentions the good in relation to the construction of reality as a whole, that it is one of the first elements from which this creation and the infinite springs.

I should say the good springs from the bounded infinite, but essentially what is the good is something defined even before bounding the infinite. :3

>Nowhere in the book is gnosis mentioned.
i am using the term gnosis for a process we don't have a better word for - phaedrus and timaeus both contain some quite clear descriptions of gnosis though yes it is true that plato did not actually reach forward 100 years into the future and pluck out a term that didnt exist yet in the time he was writing and then put it in his work funnily enough

>wrong. Just plain wrong.
why does timaeus open with a direct reference to socrates delivering the republic the day before and then discuss the difference between false understandings based on material and sensible experience and true understanding then lol. what do you think its about?

>Again incorrect, the good is also mentioned in Metaphysics. It is a characteristic and one of the first principles of human life and created energy. It is a principle of existence. Proclus (someone you should read as well) mentions the good in relation to the construction of reality as a whole, that it is one of the first elements from which this creation and the infinite springs.
Plotinus is in agreement with these thinkers and draws out further conclusions about our relationship to the good that have been repeatedly verified by other thinkers operating in different contexts. read Enneads 5.5-5.6

Newfag to Plato here, I just want to ask if I am correct that Socrates' arguments in the Phaedo are flawed because he assumes that (1) he knows and understands what the soul really is and that (2) his version of the soul is the one that really exists. Since these two points are never thoroughly questioned and all of his arguments in the dialogue are based on them, I found it hard to take it seriously. If I'm wrong, please explain how.

Have you read Proclus?

Do you even understand the point of Timaeus?

Let me make one thing abundantly clear, Plotinus is not a must read for this very reason: people like you fundamentally warp discussion into something it shouldn’t be.

Go read the Elements of Theology and get back to me.

to put it in 21st century terms the soul in plato is the 'inner self'. it is quite possible that you have not spent much time considering what your 'inner self' is or how it can be defined, but you should do that because it is a prerequisite for understanding plato. it is best to do it with your eyes closed outside in nature on a nice day.

>No one actually intelligent uses terms such as ‘gnosis’ or something of this nature when describing the Republic.
>why not?

>wrong. Just plain wrong.
>what do you think its about?

we're at two undefended assertions now. i dont think aristotle would be very pleased!!

>Do you even understand the point of Timaeus?
go ahead

But how can we be sure that such a thing even exists at all separate from the body?

Or rather, how can we be sure that Socrates' definition of the thing is correct (e.g., there is no verifiable way to confirm that the soul is "of the world of the forms" like Socrates argues).

have a think about what your inner self is with your eyes closed outside in nature

To understand the general foundation of reality. It was a principle of construction, much like The Elements of Theology, how the demiurge fashioned Earth out of chaos, etc etc

This is not Metaphysics. The reason Aristotle’s Metaphysics is the creation of a science is that it deals with the very fundamental relations that different existences have within this reality.

As opposed to analyzing the building blocks of matter in a geometrical fashion like Plato, Aristotle used geometrical fashions to analyze the building blocks of reality.

A double difference there in the perspective and thing being analyzed, you see. Aristotle’s method was circular though, meaning he did it the other way as well, but for Aristotle Arithmetic came before geometry, and for Timaeus, really, (since Timaeus was the primary philosopher in this dialogue, not Socrates) geometry came before anything else.

Hence why some arithmeticians like Nicomachus reference Timaeus very frequently.

Is anybody going to talk about ethics? Go start your own pseud filled metaphysics and timaeus thread.