Great questions... questions I share about Neoplatonism. “The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole.” (Hegel, PoS, pref.2)
It seems to me that the fruit of Neo-Platonism “refutes” it, but only as its final conclusion. It supplants it, and is incompatible with it, but not in a way that makes it untrue--just shows it not to be *the* Truth. As he says “the truth is the whole” (PoS, pref.20)
Are you doing or have you done a read through of the Phenomenology?
Yes, I like this view that a fruitful ambiguity in the early Neoplatonic tradition hardens art the end into a Damascius-style negative theology. But that this passage is somewhat related to an encounter with Christian Incarnation which in another way bursts from the shell of Neoplatonism, which is revealed as a false manifestation and as predecessor. In some sense a posited presupposition for its sublation?
Yeah, I’m doing a read through now with a reading group. Next is the early theological writings and his 1827 Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion
I think something like that is true. I mean the logic’s of nature and of person (or spirit) are already present in the scriptures, and you certainly can’t imagine a history of Christian dogma *apart* from platonic/neoplatonic philosophical suppositions
Some ideas that might be useful for the question re:the closing of the circle.
One of the features perhaps of Post-Iamblichean Platonism is how it subtly undermines the hierarchy with the Henads. It's present in Plotinus, but not as developed. The only way Soul can be a "mean" in a way that can concretely upend the hierarchy is through the Gods that constitute it. But this is so for every single "middle term" in (e.g.) the Proclean system. They all have a positivity within their mediation, a positivity unexplained by the hierarchy, lest the descent be a gnostic decline in the "goodness" of the hypostases. Ontological place and ontological Inferiority thus does not track goodness. Insodoing he has already upended the hierarchy. Even material Gods are fully Gods, huperousios. This theological dimension of the Iamblichean stream of Platonism is where you possibly find the way to complete the circle back to the One, since for Iamblichus, matter has its principle in the One itself, and is thus good. The concrete referents of the One are the Gods, the Henads, and it's in the theurgy, the work of the Gods that embraces even matter that is beyond the reach of the intelligibles, that can close the circle.
Great questions... questions I share about Neoplatonism. “The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another, they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole.” (Hegel, PoS, pref.2)
It seems to me that the fruit of Neo-Platonism “refutes” it, but only as its final conclusion. It supplants it, and is incompatible with it, but not in a way that makes it untrue--just shows it not to be *the* Truth. As he says “the truth is the whole” (PoS, pref.20)
Are you doing or have you done a read through of the Phenomenology?
Yes, I like this view that a fruitful ambiguity in the early Neoplatonic tradition hardens art the end into a Damascius-style negative theology. But that this passage is somewhat related to an encounter with Christian Incarnation which in another way bursts from the shell of Neoplatonism, which is revealed as a false manifestation and as predecessor. In some sense a posited presupposition for its sublation?
Yeah, I’m doing a read through now with a reading group. Next is the early theological writings and his 1827 Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion
I think something like that is true. I mean the logic’s of nature and of person (or spirit) are already present in the scriptures, and you certainly can’t imagine a history of Christian dogma *apart* from platonic/neoplatonic philosophical suppositions
You might take a look at the preface to Hinrich's religion. If you want secondary stuff, Robert Williams and Hodgson of course.
Nice. I have, and am working with, Hodgson’s stuff (and Stephen Houlgate) but not Robert Williams. I’ll check into him!
Interesting thoughts.
Some ideas that might be useful for the question re:the closing of the circle.
One of the features perhaps of Post-Iamblichean Platonism is how it subtly undermines the hierarchy with the Henads. It's present in Plotinus, but not as developed. The only way Soul can be a "mean" in a way that can concretely upend the hierarchy is through the Gods that constitute it. But this is so for every single "middle term" in (e.g.) the Proclean system. They all have a positivity within their mediation, a positivity unexplained by the hierarchy, lest the descent be a gnostic decline in the "goodness" of the hypostases. Ontological place and ontological Inferiority thus does not track goodness. Insodoing he has already upended the hierarchy. Even material Gods are fully Gods, huperousios. This theological dimension of the Iamblichean stream of Platonism is where you possibly find the way to complete the circle back to the One, since for Iamblichus, matter has its principle in the One itself, and is thus good. The concrete referents of the One are the Gods, the Henads, and it's in the theurgy, the work of the Gods that embraces even matter that is beyond the reach of the intelligibles, that can close the circle.
I think Proclus' view on embodiment line up alot with Dioynusus'