Help an anon understand Plotinus' Tractate on Fate

"(...) As for Things of Process — or for Eternal Existents whose Act is not eternally invariable — we must hold that these are due to Cause; (...)".
(Third Ennead, First Tractate)

>variable act

What is a variable act? How can an act be variable? It happened in the past, no? So how could something in the past vary/change? I don't get it, anons.

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Use a better translation perhaps

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and I need a new pair of glasses

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Io80nHM.jpeg

      and I need a new pair of glasses

      Thank you. Where did you find this document and it's a translation by whom?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Read your own OP image, it's Lloyd P Gerson's translation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, sorry. Yeah, just got the pdf.
          >Now in the case of eternal Beings, it is not possible to trace those of them that are first to other causes, since they are the first, ...
          Isn't this contradictory? If they are eternal and the first, they ARE first to other causes, no?
          >...whereas we grant that those which depend on the firsts have their existence from them.
          >hypothetical plural for "firsts"
          What would that mean?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are firsts out of Inevitability sequentially from the One as uncaused causes that unify All things without being in each every thing distinguished apart as a part from its Unity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But if "firsts" was not in the plural, I would think that he would be referring to the One itself, not to the eternal Beings. Would this assumption be wrong? Or are the eternal Beings the same as the One?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literally contemplate on the footnotes in the Gerson edited translation, the firsts are hypothetically entertained but not actually needed in Plotinus's system. Other people may extrapolate to throw in all sorts of henads immediately after the indistinguishable One as it is done in Late Neoplatonism.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you should look to the original Greek here.

    Here is another translation of the text:

    >1. In the two orders of things- those whose existence is that of process and those in whom it is Authentic Being- there is a variety of possible relation to Cause.

    This is a translation issue.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nta, but the Greek:

      Ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀιδίων τὰ μὲν πρῶτα εἰς ἄλλα αἴτια ἀνάγειν οὐχ οἷόν τε πρῶτα ὄντα· ὅσα δὲ ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἤρτηται, ἐξ ἐκείνων τὸ εἶναι ἐχέτω. Τάς τε ἐνεργείας ἑκάστων ἀποδιδούς τις ἐπὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἀναγέτω· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ εἶναι αὐτῷ, τὸ τοιάνδε ἐνέργειαν ἀποδιδόναι.

      https://remacle.org/bloodwolf/philosophes/plotin/enneade31.htm

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Plotnius is contrasting our temporal and ever changing reality with that of the Absolute, which doesn't exist in our sphere of experience. So to answer your question, all acts in space time are variable. All acts within eternity are invariable. You've never seen or experienced an invariable act directly, and experience it indirectly, always.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I thought space-time and eternity were the same. Can you mention an act that is not in eternity?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        eternity has no "action" (energion)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So why did you affirm that "all acts within eternity are invariable."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ?*

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, space-time is a self contained reality continuum. Eternity is outside of any bounds, including that of concepts.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So for what I understood, Plotinus is a determinist. Would he have the same opinions if he was alive today and had access to quantum mechanics knowledge?

    ?si=SyC7O5gSOToH3NHk

    ?si=Uspsb3eKlq5Fx1Us
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think you are too stupid to understand Plotinus. Stick with your shitty Youtubers for insight.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        OP's book has the first note on the topic in question saying "§1. All things are caused except the first.". What did I miss saying that he is a determinist?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *